Allowed

Cicy.C.Augustine v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2012WP(C)/5146/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by three school teachers, holding that they are entitled to the benefits of an earlier judgment regarding appointment approval, quashing relevant impugned orders and directing the respondents to regularize their service.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; direction to approve appointments and grant consequential benefits based on the Nadeera judgment.

Cicy.C.Augustine 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5146 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. CICY.C.AUGUSTINE, AGED 29 YEARS AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.SOJAN GEORGE, FULL TIME MENIAL ST.MARY'S GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KANJIRAPPALLY NOW RESIDING AT THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KARINILAM P.O. PULIKKUNNU, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. TOM JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, PEON, FATHIMA HIGH SCHOOL MLAMALA, RESIDING AT EDINJAPUZHACKAL HOUSE UPPUTHARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

3. ANNI JOHN AGED 44 YEARS, PEON, HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL INCHIYANI, RESIDING AT PULLICKAL HOUSE KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., MANIDAMKUZHY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶15

4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶16

5. CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS DIOCESE OF KANJIRAPPALLY, PASTORAL CENTRE KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686507.

¶17

R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ

¶18

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.LOWSY.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 5146 of 2012 (P)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER 1.7.2008 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER B5/5476/08/K DIS DATED 29.8.09 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/13667/09/KDIS DATED 12/10/2009 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET(3)34449/2010/DPI/K/DIS.DATED 18.6.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.61213/N2/10 GEN.EDN.DATED 21.10.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.9.2008 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/7551/K DIS DATED 24.6.09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/10380/09/KDIS. DATED 6.11.09 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET(3)/34447/2010/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 26.6.2010 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.57652/N2/IDG EDN.DATED 2.11.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.1.2009 OF APPOINTMENT OF THE IST PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NI.B5/155/09/K DIS.DATED 28.8.09.

¶35

EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/14520/09/K.DIS. DATED 25.11.09.

¶36

EXHIBIT P14- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET3/41417/2010/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 18.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P15- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.58727/10/GEN.EDN. DATED 11.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P16- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPOINTMENT DTD.3.11.2009.

¶39

EXHIBIT P17- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/15461/2009 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 20.11.2009.

¶40

WP(C).No. 5146 of 2012 (P)

¶41

EXHIBIT P18- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD.03.05.2010.

¶42

EXHIBIT P19- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.38929/J1/2009/G.EDN. DTD.19.11.2009 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶48

W.P.(C). No. 5146 of 2012

¶49

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2012

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶52

following prayers:

¶53

“i. To call for the records leading to Exts.P1 to P19 and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P2 to P5 and Exts.P7 to P10 and Exts.P12 to P15 and Ext.P19;

¶54

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the appointment of the petitioners are entitled to be approved with effect from the respective date of their appointment;

¶55

iii. To issue a writ or order commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioners with effect from the respective date of each petitioner's appointment, and to grant all consequential benefits including disbursement of arrears of salary;”

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶57

issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in

¶58

W.P.C. No. 5146 of 2012

¶59

-2-

¶60

W.P.(C).Nos. 28577 & 29086 of 2008 dated 04.08.2011 as reported in Nadeera v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 790) .

¶61

The operative portion of the said verdict is extracted below:

¶62

“20. It is in that context that the procedure for communicating the list of protected teachers forwarded under Ext.P10 Government Order and later orders comes into play and going by the decisions of this Court in Exts.P12 to P15 judgments, if it is also absent, there cannot be any bar for approval of appointment. There is no contention by respondents that at the time of filling up the vacancies such a list was forwarded to the Manager. Apart from that the appointment of a teacher in a school only recognizes the obligation of the Manger to conduct the school in terms of the Statute, requirements of the students and the staff fixation. Primary concern is the welfare of the students and therefore unless a qualified hand is appointed, the Manager will not be able to conduct the school in a proper manner also.

¶63

W.P.C. No. 5146 of 2012

¶64

-3-

¶65

This does not mean that he can wriggle out the obligation regarding appointment of a protected hand; but the system should not be stretched to the extent of denying approval of appointment of a qualified teacher, that too in vacancies lie those herein, which arose due to retirement of qualified teachers. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, herein there is no additional financial burden to the Government since no other teachers were paid salary also. In that view of the matter the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the Writ Petition.

¶66

The Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders Exts.P1 to P4 produced in both the Writ Petitions are quashed.

¶67

There will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 28577/08 with effect from 18.11.2005 and the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 29086/08 with effect from 29.7.2005.

¶68

W.P.C. No. 5146 of 2012

¶69

-4-

¶70

Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will be entitled for grant of all consequential benefits.”

¶71

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶72

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the petitioners are also entitled to have the benefit of the above judgment. In the said circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the judgment cited supra.

¶73

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶74

Kp/-

Cicy.C.Augustine v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cicy.C.Augustine 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Sameesha Vs the State of Kerala

K.a.Girija Vs State of Kerala

Corpus Christi Educational Society Vs Union of India

Vijayakumar Vs Authorized Officer

The Manager,K.R.G.P.M.H.S.S.,Odanavattom Vs State of Kerala & 3 Others

Vinukumar.P.v Vs Director General