The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his revision petition seeking approval for an appointment as a school menial. The court held the Government's order was correct as the petitioner exceeded the age limit applicable to non-teaching staff and failed to produce genuine appointment documents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 28542 of 2012 (P)
PETITIONER:
P.A.SUNNY, AGED 36 YEARS, SON OF P.C.ANTONY, FULL-TIME MENIAL, ST.FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLA MATTOM, THRISSUR-680 602.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
5. THE HEADMASTER,
BY SRI.M.A.FAYAZ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
WP(C).No. 28542 of 2012 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1: | COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01/02/2011. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2: | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-1094/11/K.DIS. DATED 14/3/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3: | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-5347/11/K.DIS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/10/2011. |
| EXT.P4: | COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 17/11/2011. |
| EXT.P5: | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO. 31924 OF 2011-M DATED 30/11/2011. |
| EXT.P6: | COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.4101/12 G.EDN. DATED 25/08/2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT. |
| EXT.P7: | COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF SMT.T.M.MAGGIE AND APPROVAL THEREOF. |
| EXT.P8: | COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF SRI.M.VARUN VARGHEES AND APPROVAL THEREOF. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
AS
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
W.P.(C) No. 28542 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of non-approval of appointment given to him as Full-time Menial in the 4th respondent's school.
W.P.(C) No. 28542 of 2012
: 2 :
the sides, including the Manager and the petitioner, Ext. P6 order dated 25.08.2012 came to be passed, whereby the revision petition was dismissed, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 28542 of 2012
: 3 :
given appointment against the vacancy resulted because of promotion given to one Varun Varghese, a Full Time Menial, as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher w..e..f. 03.06.2008 and not against the vacancy of Jaison P.T. as shown in Ext. P1 appointment order. With regard to the plea of the petitioner (as projected in the writ petition) with reference to Rule 2 (2) of Chapter XXIV A, that the petitioner is very much within the age limit when the appointment was given, it is stated that the said Rule pertains to the ministerial staff who were appointed in the aided school on or before 01.10.1964. In the course of the proceedings, the Manager and the petitioner were asked to produce relevant documents, in view of the fact that veracity of the documents produced by the petitioner was doubted, as the appointment order referring to the promotion vacancy of Varun Varghese did not contain the signature of the Corporate Manager. As the documents produced were not genuine, the petitioner as well as the Manager were directed to furnish the correct appointment order and other
W.P.(C) No. 28542 of 2012
: 4 :
documents before the DEO. It has also been observed in Ext. P6 that, neither the Manager nor the petitioner did produce the correct appointment order even after the lapse of four months. It was accordingly, that a clear finding was rendered, whereby it was held that the petitioner was not eligible to have the approval. It is also observed that the idea and understanding of the petitioner with regard to Rule 2 (2) of Chapter XXIV is quite wrong and misconceived, as the said Rule, makes it clear that it is applicable only in respect of 'ministerial staff' who were appointed in aided school on or before 01.10.1964, stipulating that the upper age limit of such employees prescribed as '45' years were permitted to continue in service till the age of 60. The said Rule is not applicable to persons like the petitioner, since as per Rule 5 of Chapter XXIV of KER, the prescribed upper age limit for appointment of non-teaching staff in the aided school is 35 years. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner's date of birth is 03.07.1975 and as such, as on 01.01.2011, he has exceeded
W.P.(C) No. 28542 of 2012
: 5 :
the age limit of 35 years. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner neither a Rule 51A claimant nor a Rule 43 claimant under Chapter XIV A KER.
In the said circumstance, this Court finds that Ext. P6 is a speaking order, well within the four walls of law. As such, no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)
kmd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the revisional order dismissing the petitioner's claim for approval of appointment as a full-time menial.
Whether the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit for appointment given that he exceeded 35 years of age at the time of application.
P.A. Sunny
The State of Kerala
The Deputy Director of Education
The District Educational Officer
The Corporate Manager, St. Francis School
The Headmaster, St. Francis School
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
