Allowed

Sulaikha P.A. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2012WP(C)/6297/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition seeking approval for the petitioner's appointment as a Full Time Menial in a vocational school, directing the District Educational Officer to issue appropriate orders and disburse monetary benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

The District Educational Officer directed to approve the petitioner's appointment and disburse monetary benefits within two months.

Sulaikha P.A. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6297 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SULAIKHA P.A., AGED 35 YEARS AGED 35 YEARS, PARUVATHADOM HOUSE EAST VAZHAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686663 NOW WORKING AS FULL TIME MENIAL THE THARBIATH TRUST VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KAVUMAKRA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶12

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶13

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

¶17

ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶18

4. THE DISRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

¶19

MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686663.

¶20

5. THE MANAGER,

¶21

THE THARBIATH TRUST VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

¶22

KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686663.

¶23

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A. LOWSY

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.

¶25

WP(C).No. 6297 of 2012 (J)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.53764/N2/10/G.EDN. DATED 27/9/2010.

¶29

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3144/2011.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶35

- - - - W.P.(c) No. 6297 OF 2012

¶36

- - - - Dated this the 16^th day of October , 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time

¶39

Menial under the 5^th respondent manager with effect from 5/3/2009 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶40

The case of the petitioner is that, the reason for non approval as discernible from Ext.P1 communication issued by the first respondent addressing to the 5^th respondent Manager is that, the school was a newly opened school and one protected hand was to be appointed in the arising vacancy as per G.O.No.46/06/G.Edn. Dated 01/02/2006. It is also pointed out that protected hands were waiting for appointment in the queue on the date of appointment of the petitioner in the revenue district and hence the claim for approval was not liable to be entertained.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the observation in Ext.P1 is not correct either on facts or in law. Firstly

¶42

W.P.(C)No.6297/2012 2

¶43

that the relevant Government Order is not applicable to the case in hand

¶44

in respect of Full Time Menial and the same is applicable only in respect of teachers. Secondly, no list of protected teachers was ever supplied to the 5^th respondent requiring them to be appointed against the vacancies and further that, even now, the department has not stated, who are the protected hands in the concerned revenue district/Education district.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, recently a similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P. (C)No.3144/2011 culminating Ext.P2 judgment, whereby the stand taken by the respondents was held as not correct or sustainable, thus granting the relief sought for, placing reliance on the legal position

¶46

declared as per the decision in Moosakutty v. D.E.O., Wandoor ( 2009(3) KLT 863) .

¶47

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶48

Though the writ petition was filed as early as on

¶49

14.03.2012 and notice has been served to all the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. There is no dispute with regard

¶50

W.P.(C)No.6297/2012

¶51

¶52

to the points raised in the writ petition, more so, with regard to the dictum in Moosakutty's case ( cited supra) and the similar verdict passed by this Court vide Ext.P2.

¶53

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed, to have similar benefits as flowing from Ext.P2. Therefore, the fourth respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed at the earliest at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monetary benefits flowing therefrom shall also be disbursed to the petitioner forthwith.

¶54

Writ petition is allowed. No cost.

¶55

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶56

sv.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.6297/2012 4

Sulaikha P.A. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaikha P.A. 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

Dr.C.R.Elsy Vs the State of Kerala

Jinsa v. Vs Honourable High Court of Kerala, Represented by the Registrar(Recruitment and Computerisation), Er

Unnikrishnan Nair Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Surendran P.A Vs M/S. Iti Limited

Manager, Auzillium School, Varakkad, Vs State

Dr.K.P.Swaroop Kumar Vs State of Kerala