Partly allowed

V.C.Prajitha v. the Assistant Educational Officer

Kerala HC29 Nov 2012WP(C)/3730/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Government order that directed the redetermination of student numbers for a past academic year via UID technology. The Court directed the State to pass fresh orders on actual facts within two months after hearing the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P4 order set aside; 3rd respondent directed to pass fresh orders within two months after hearing petitioners based on actual facts.

V.C.Prajitha Vs the Assistant Educational… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | 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 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3730 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. V.C.PRAJITHA, AGED 27 YEARS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, AIDED U.P SCHOOL PERINKULAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2. THE MANAGER UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, AIDED U.P SCHOOL PERINKULAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678 541.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

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

¶14

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 3730 of 2012 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF ORDER G/2726/06/K/DIS DATED 11-09-2006 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 5-11-2009 FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) 163/2012/G.EDN DATED 10-1-2012.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR 2007-08.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR 1973-74.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

// TRUE COPY \

P.A TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 3730 of 2012

¶29

¶30

Dated, this the 29^th day of November, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioners seek to intercept Ext. P4 order passed by the Government, whereby the re-determination of the number of students in the concerned school through UID technology has been ordered and to extend the relief to the petitioner in respect of her appointment and approval of the service, being a Rule 51A claimant.

¶33

The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the first petitioner was appointed as UPSA in a retirement vacancy as per Ext. P1 order dated 11.09.2009 issued by the 2^nd petitioner - the Manager of the school. But later, in respect of the year 2008 - '09, it was observed that there was no sufficient students' strength, thus resulting in reduction of 3 classes and the petitioner also came to be ousted as one among the three. There is no dispute with regard to the factual position in this regard.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 3730 of 2012

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

The grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the subsequent developments, as there is considerable increase of the students for the academic years 2009 - '10. The petitioners contend that the petitioner is entitled to have reappointment and additional vacancies ought to have been sanctioned, to meet the requirement following the students and teacher ratio. The claim mooted in this regard, however, was not sanctioned by the DDE, stating that there was a 'Ban' imposed by the Government as per the relevant Government Order. Though the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the second respondent, it did not turn to be fruitful as borne by Ext. P3 order, whereby the revision petition was rejected referring to the 'Ban'.

¶37

Invoking the power and procedure under the relevant provisions of law, the petitioner preferred second revision before the Government, thus leading to Ext. P4 order dated 10.01.2012, whereby the revision petition came to be allowed, but with a rider in the following terms, as given in paragraph 3 of the order, which is extracted below:

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 3730 of 2012

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

In the above circumstances Director of Public Instruction is directed to determine the number of students in the school through 'UID technology' and number of divisions will be arrived on the basis of Revised Pupil Teacher Ratio and examine the scope of accommodating the affected teacher.”

¶41

The case of the petitioner is that stipulation in Ext. P4 directing the second respondent to re-determine the number of students in the school through UID technology cannot be implemented, as the order is dated 10.01.2012 and redetermination is sought for in respect of the year 2009 - '10 and hence it is to be re-considered.

¶42

The third respondent has filed a statement virtually conceding the position as pleaded with regard to the increase in the students in the year 2009 - '10. It is also conceded in paragraph 6 of the said statement that the process of determining the students' strength through UID technology is yet to be completed.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Government is ready to

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 3730 of 2012

¶45

: 4 :

¶46

reconsider Ext. P4 and to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time.

¶47

In the above circumstances, Ext. P4 is set aside and the 3^rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, taking note of the actual facts and figures, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two' months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶49

sd/-

¶50

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶51

kmd

V.C.Prajitha v. the Assistant Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.C.Prajitha v. the Assistant Educational Officer

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

Sreekumar Vs District Educational Officer

K.a.Sivan Vs Director,Urban Affairs

Dr.Balachandran Keezhoth Vs Kannur University & Others

Dr.Joseph James Vs the Registrar

N.M. Majeed Vs the Manager

V.T.Thomas Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm)