Allowed

The Manager,K.R.G.P.M.H.S.S.,Odanavattom v. State of Kerala & 3 Others

Kerala HC11 Oct 2012WP(C)/1572/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition by the school manager, the Court set aside an order rejecting an appointment approval passed by the Regional Dy. Director. Relying on a prior Div. Bench judgment, it held that only the Director of Higher Secondary Education possesses the power to sanction such posts in aided schools. The matter was remanded to the Director for reconsideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection order by the 3rd respondent is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order within two months.

The Manager,K.R.G.P.M.H.S.S.,Odanavattom Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1572 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

THE MANAGER, K.R.G.P.M,H.S.S. & VHSS, ODANAVATTOM, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶9

SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE REGIONAL DY. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. SMT.VIJI.V., AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.SRI.D.BABUKUTTAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT VIJITHALAYAM, OYUR PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SMT.K.A.LOWSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

AMV

¶18

WP(C).No. 1572 of 2010 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶21

P1. : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2009. P2. : COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.TRO/51/196809/HSE DATED 07.12.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3. : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2065/2008 DATED 16.07.2009

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 1572 of 2010

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Registration of approval of the appointment given to the 4^th respondent, forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, filed by the Manager of the School.

¶31

The 4^th respondent was appointed as 'Librarian Grade III' in the petitioner's School as per proceedings dated 19.11.2009. It is for the 2^nd respondent to sanction the post of Librarian Grade III in the Higher Secondary School by virtue of the relevant provisions, particularly Rule 4(4) of Chapter XXXII KER. The appointment given to the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P1 was rejected to be approved as per Ext.P2 order dated 07.12.2009, issued by the 3^rd respondent, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶32

Many a contention has been raised by the petitioner, particularly with regard to the authority of the 3^rd respondent to pass Ext.P2 which, according to the petitioner is vested purely upon the Director. It is also pointed out that, the idea and understanding of the 3^rd respondent in Ext.P2, that it requires the

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 1572 of 2010

¶35

approval of Government is quite wrong and misconceived, in view of the law declared by this Court in W.A.No.2065/2008, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P3.

¶36

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who however sought to distinguish the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the subsequent turn of events. Taking note of the relevant provisions of law, the Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph 7 of Ext.P3, as follows:

¶37

“Going by the statutory scheme, we find no role for the Government in sanctioning of posts in Higher Secondary wing. There is no rule in Chapter XXXII, similar to Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII of the .K E R. ., which enables the Government to extend the prohibition introduced by it for creation of posts in Government Schools to aided schools also. , If owing to financial constraints, the Government issue some directions to the Director, and the Director acts upon it, such decision of the Director would be ultra vires and unauthorised, because he will be acting under dictation and will be surrendering his power to act in his discretion, to the Government, which have no say in the matter as per the Rules. So, in this case, we are of the view that, whether sanction of the post of Librarian in the second respondent s' school is justified or not, is a matter which the Director may decide independently ”.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 1572 of 2010

¶40

Going by the contents of Ext.P3 this Court finds that Ext.P2 order passed by the 3^rd respondent is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Ext.P3. The 3^rd respondent does not appear to be the competent authority and the power actually is vested with the 2^nd respondent.

¶41

In the above circumstance, this Court does not require any second thought to intercept Ext.P2 and the said order is set aside accordingly. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of Ext.P3, including the financial implication and such other relevant aspects and pass a reasoned order, after hearing the parties concerned, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

Writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No costs.

¶43

sd/-

¶44

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶45

AMV

The Manager,K.R.G.P.M.H.S.S.,Odanavattom v. State of Kerala & 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager,K.R.G.P.M.H.S.S.,Odanavattom v. State of Kerala & 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Sameesha Vs the State of Kerala

K.a.Girija Vs State of Kerala

Corpus Christi Educational Society Vs Union of India

Vijayakumar Vs Authorized Officer

Cicy.C.Augustine Vs State of Kerala

Vinukumar.P.v Vs Director General