Disposed

Suresan Kumbhanilath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2012WP(C)/27723/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the General Education Secretary to consider pending representations regarding the creation of posts for petitioners and to decide on salary payment after a hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider representations and decide salary and post status after hearing within two months; second respondent to finalize appeal proceedings within one month thereafter.

Suresan Kumbhanilath Vs State of Kerala — 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 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 27723 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SURESAN KUMBHANILATH,, H S A (ENGLISH), IRITTY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KEZHUR, IRITTY - 670 703, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. KUNHINARAYANAN K.P., H S A (HINDI), IRITTY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KEZHUR, IRITTY - 670 703, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION (DHSE), HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE RDDHSE, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPT. - 695 001.

¶15

4. MANAGER, IRITTY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KEZHUR, IRITTY - 670 703, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

WPC.NO.27723/2012 M

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)211/2011/G.EDN DT.24.10.11.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT.15.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MADURAJ KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY IN REGARD TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S MA (ENGLISH).

¶25

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN REGARD TO HIS 1ST YEAR MA (HINDI) EXAMINATION.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4(a). TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN REGARD TO HIS FINAL YEAR MA (HINDI) EXAMINATION.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.13.08.2012 SUBMITTED TO THE GOVT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5(a). TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.14.08.2012 SUBMITTED TO THE MANAGER TO THE GOVT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.16.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMO DT.25.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7(a). TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMO DT.25.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(c) No. 27723 OF 2012

¶39

¶40

Dated this the 26^th day of November , 2012

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioners mainly contend that the sanction/creation of post

¶43

in the aided sector covered by Ext.P1 is having only prospective effect from the date of issuance of Ext.P1 i.e. 24.10.2011. The uncertainity in

¶44

the matter has led to adverse consequences, whereby the petitioners have been left in such a position that they are not receiving salary either as H.S.S.T ( Junior) or as the H.S.A. Pointing out the facts and figures and also the relevant provisions of law, the petitioners have already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P5 representation along with similar representation preferred by the fourth respondent Manager as Ext.P5(a) for clarifying the issue, which is pending consideration. With regard to Ext.P6 order passed by the third respondent, the grievance has been projected by way of Ext.P7 and P7(a) appeals, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. But the fate of the said proceedings will depend on the clarification to be issued by the first respondent on Exts.P5 and P5(a).

¶45

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶46

W.P.(C)No.27723/2012 2

¶47

Considering the nature of the grievance projected by the petitioner, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent for the time being. The first respondent is directed to consider Exts.P5 and P5(a) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also to the fourth respondent at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question of payment of salary to the petitioners shall also be considered by the first respondent, while passing orders on Ext.P5/P5(a) as aforesaid. The second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7/P7(a) on the basis of the orders to be passed by the first respondent as aforesaid and finalise the said proceedings within one month thereafter.

¶48

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶49

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

sv.

¶53

W.P.(C)No.27723/2012 2

Suresan Kumbhanilath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresan Kumbhanilath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Mary Davis Vs the State of Kerala

K.Deepa Vs the State of Kerala

Sudheesh S.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Thankamani Vs Smt. K.M. Karthyayani

K.S.Srelekha Vs State of Kerala

Manager Vs State of Kerala