Disposed

Abey Daniel v. Regional Deputy Director

Kerala HC10 Dec 2012WP(C)/25603/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two linked writ petitions, the High Court noted the Principal post may become vacant by March 2013. Petitioners sought extension of appointment or review. The Court directed parties to pursue the matter before the Regional Deputy Director. Proceedings before the State were kept pending; issues left open.

What did the court decide?

Parties relegated to pursue the matter before the Regional Deputy Director. Proceedings pending with the State need not be dealt with immediately. Issues left open.

Abey Daniel Vs Regional Deputy Director — 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

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/19TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25603 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABEY DANIEL, AGED 41 YEARS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, ST. GREGORIOUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA-691531. BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN SMT.V.B.SANTHINI RESPONDENTS:

¶8

REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶9

THE CORPORATE MANAGER, MMC CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS, CATHOLICATE ARAMANA, P.O. DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM-686038.

¶10

G.KOSHY PRINCIPAL, ST. GREGORIOUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O. PULAMON, KOTTARAKKAR-691531. R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW ADV. SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.A.FAYAZ

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2012 ALONG WITH WPC. NO.27462/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) 25603/12

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXTS.:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.4.2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.4.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.2.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.2.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶16

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SENIORITY LIST.

¶17

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.7.2012 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXTS.(2ND RESPONDENT):

¶19

EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.5.2012 BY THE MANAGEMENT.

(True copy)

P.A. to Judge.

Srd

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶24

¶25

W.P.(c) Nos. 25603 & 27462 OF 2012

¶26

- - - - Dated this the 10^th day of December , 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The issues involved in both these cases are closely inter-linked with each other. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27462/2012 was appointed as the Principal of St.Gregorios Higher Secondary School, Kottarakkara and is continuing in office with effect from 1.4.2008. According to the petitioner, he is the senior most qualified hand, who came to be appointed as the Principal, pursuant to a valid selection process, vide Ext.P1. It is also stated that, he will attain the age of superannuation of 56 years in the year 2021 and as such, can continue till such time. But approval of the appointment was given by the departmental authorities only till 31.03.2013 and as such, the petitioner has approached the Manager and the departmental authorities for causing the approval of the appointment to be extended till his retirement. The petitioner has also been given to understand that the Manager has already preferred a representation, as borne by Ext.P6 in

¶29

W.P.(C)Nos.25603 & 27462 of 2012

¶30

¶31

this regard, before the Regional Deputy Director and since nothing transpired in the positive, the petitioner has moved the first respondent invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER, by filing Ext.P7 revision petition dated 11.2.2011, followed by Ext.P8 reminder dated 5.11.2012. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the Government to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P8 within a reasonable time.

¶32

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25603/2012 contends that, he happens to be much senior to the third respondent therein (who happens to the writ petitioner in the other case), despite which the third respondent came to be selected and appointed as the Principal. It is also contended that, no seniority list has been produced before this Court and that the third respondent is not having the requisite extent of teaching experience. Taking note of the fact that the tenure of appointment for a period of 'five' years ordered as per Exts.P1 and P2 therein will come to an end on 31.03.2013, a proper selection has to be conducted considering the claim and eligibility of the persons like the petitioner, who stand on a much higher footing than the third

¶33

W.P.(C)Nos.25603 & 27462 of 2012

¶34

¶35

respondent. But the petitioner is given to understand that steps have been going on to have the service of the third respondent extended which made him to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition for causing Ext.P6 representation preferred by the Manager before the Regional Deputy Director to be considered and disposed within a reasonable time.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/Departmental authorities submits that, the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27462/2012 was pursuant to the proceedings finalised by a validly constituted Selection Committee and that too in the year 2008. There was absolutely no challenge whatsoever from any corner during the past five years and as such, it is not open for the petitioner in the other case i.e. W.P.(C) No.25603/2012 to turn around at this distance of time, challenging the course and proceedings. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, approval of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27462/2012 was confined to 31.03.2013, in view of the fact that the Manager has sought for approval only till such time and that the

¶37

W.P.(C)Nos.25603 & 27462 of 2012

¶38

¶39

State/Departmental authority cannot be blamed under any circumstance.

¶40

The learned counsel for the Manager submits with

¶41

reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed before this Court that, the Manager has already approached the Regional Deputy Director seeking for extension of tenure of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27462/2012 and to have the same approved by the departmental authorities as well. The averments and allegations raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25603/2012 have also sought to be rebutted in the counter affidavit. The learned counsel further submits that the Management Institution is in fact a 'minority institution' and is having every right to select and appoint a suitable/competent hand of their choice, by virtue of the rights and liberties under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the 'minority status' of the petitioner has already been taken note of by the Apx Court in Civil Case NO.8576/2003 involving appointment of Principal to a college owned by the very same Corporate Management at that time. The learned counsel for the Manager also submits that the petitioner in W.P.

¶42

W.P.(C)Nos.25603 & 27462 of 2012

¶43

¶44

(C)No.25603/2012 was not even an applicant at the time of selecting the third respondent therein as the Principal of the school in the year 2008 and that the said petitioner was not even qualified, having no sufficient teaching experience of 12 years as prescribed in the statutory provision.

¶45

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the post of Principal in the concerned school can fall vacant only by 31.03.2013

¶46

and further extension of the appointment if any, as sought for by the Manager and its approval, has necessarily to be considered by the Regional Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram. In the said circumstance, the parties are relegated to pursue the matter before the said authority, by filing appropriate proceedings. Such proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law after hearing all concerned, including the petitioner in both the writ petitions and also the Manager of the school concerned. Final orders as above shall be passed at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the direction given as above, this Court makes it

¶47

W.P.(C)Nos.25603 & 27462 of 2012

¶48

¶49

clear that the proceedings which are stated as pending consideration

¶50

before the State, if any, need not be dealt with for the time being. All

¶51

the issues raised by the parties concerned are left open.

¶52

Both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶53

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶54

sv.

¶55

W.P.(C)Nos.25603 & 27462 of 2012

¶56

Abey Daniel v. Regional Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abey Daniel v. Regional Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahina Vs State Ofkerala and 3 Others

S.Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Fasalul Haque Vs State of Kerala

Y.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Jose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Dr.M.Sivaswami Vs Kerala Agricultural University