Dismissed

Ajaitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2012WP(C)/17672/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment of her daughter under Rule 51(B) of the Kerala Education Rules based on her husband's service. The court rejected claims that the husband was dead or deceased to presume his death, noting disciplinary proceedings first ended his service. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not termed as Rule 51(B) claimant; interference declined.

Ajaitha Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/18TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 17672 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AJITHA,

¶8

W/O JAYACHANDRAN PILLAI, SINDHU BHAVAN, KADAVOOR, PERINAD P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶13

3. THE MANAGER, M.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, UPPOODU, EAST KALLADA P.O, KOLLAM - 691 502.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LOWSY.A. R3 BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.17672/2012 H

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-09-2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND SRI. JAYACHANDRAN PILLAI.

¶21

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20-04-2012.

¶22

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31-05-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DTD. 20/06/2012. R3(B): COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DTD. 10/05/2012.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶29

¶30

W.P. (C) No. 17672 of 2012

¶31

¶32

Dated, this the 9^th day of November, 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶35

following prayers :

¶36

i. To call for the records leading to the petitioner's case from the 3rd respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the proceedings for fresh appointment to the post of Peon in the 3^rd respondent Aided Management School ignoring the claim of the petitioner under Chapter XIV A Rule 51 (B) of the Kerala Education Rules.

¶37

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents to appoint the petitioners daughter Ms. Jayalekshmi o the post of Peon in the 3^rd respondent Aided Management School as per Chapter XIV A Rule 51 (B) of Kerala Education Rules within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment and disburse the benefits.

¶38

iii. To declare that the petitioner's daughter Ms. Jayalekhshmi is entitled to get appointment to the post

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 17672 of 2012

¶40

: 2 :

¶41

of Peon in the 3^rd respondent Aided Management School as per Chapter XIV A Rule 51 (B) of Kerala Education Rules.

¶42

iv. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the husband of the petitioner was working as a Peon in the 3^rd respondent's school, based on Ext. P1 appointment order. It is stated that, the petitioner's husband left the school as well as residence of the petitioner from 23.07.2009 and his whereabouts are not known to the petitioner. It is also stated that, though the petitioner approached the police by filing a compliant, the same did not turn to be fruitful and the petitioner is not aware, whether her husband is alive or not. Meanwhile, the school authorities issued Ext. P2 notification, whereby the husband of the petitioner was removed from the service of the school, in view of the continued unauthorized absence. The petitioner has approached this Court projecting

¶44

her status as a Rule 51 (B) claimant and seeking for appointment under the 3^rd respondent.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 17672 of 2012

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the third respondent has filed counter affidavit, asserting that, the petitioner is not liable to be termed as a Rule 51 (B) claimant under any circumstances. Absolutely no proof has been produced to show that her husband is no more. It is also pointed out that, by virtue of continued unauthorized absence of petitioner's husband and the misconduct committed in this regard, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and finally he was dismissed from service as borne by Ext. R3(a) proceedings dated 20.06.2012. It is stated that the said order has become final; which in fact was passed on the basis of the sanction given by the educational authorities as per Ext. R3(b) proceedings dated 10.05.2012. This being the position, the version of the petitioner, styling herself as a Rule 51 (B) claimant, is not liable to be entertained under any circumstances.

¶48

Apart from the fact that service of the husband of the petitioner was put to an end to, pursuant to the disciplinary

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 17672 of 2012

¶50

: 4 :

¶51

proceedings as aforesaid, it also remains an admitted fact that the petitioner is not aware as to whether her husband is alive or not. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner is missing only from 23.07.2009 and hence the presumption under

¶52

Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot apply. As a natural consequence, the petitioner cannot be termed as a person having any vested right, by virtue of Rule 51 (B). The idea and understanding of the petitioner to the contrary is quite wrong and misconceived. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.

¶53

sd/-

¶54

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶55

kmd

¶56

/True copy/

¶57

P.A. to Judge

Ajaitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Stella Vs Asok Kumar Singh IAS

State of Kerala Vs S.Syam

Chandramathy Amma.K.S. Vs the Accountant General (a & E)

Elju Baby Vs the Controller of Examinations

P.Bindu Vs State of Kerala

Arumugham Vs Kottayam Municipality