Allowed

Habna Jose v. the Director of Public Instruction

Kerala HC12 Nov 2012WP(C)/795/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala held that the appointment of the petitioner as an H.S.A. must be approved since no undeployed protected teacher was available in the Educational District. The court quashed orders withholding salary and directed respondents to grant consequential benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; appointment approved with effect from 12.6.2008; consequential benefits granted within three months.

Habna Jose Vs the Director of Public… — 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

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/21ST KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 795 of 2011 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

HABNA JOSE, W/O. DR. ARUN RAPHEL, KUNDUKULANGARA PARAMBAN HOUSE,CHIYYARAM.P.O. THRISSUR-680 026.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶12

3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF THRISSUR-680001.

¶13

ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED

¶14

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶15

R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY A.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM R3 BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

tss

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.795/2011

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGTS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.D 1.9.2010.

¶24

P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22.10.2010.

¶25

P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 8.11.2010 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 20.4.2011.

¶27

P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.5.2011 OF THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶28

P7:- COPY OF LETTER DTD. 20.11.2010 FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

¶29

P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD NIL FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.

¶30

P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.45129/A1/2010/G.EDN. DTD. 15.9.2010.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶32

R3(a):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 17.6.2008 ISSUED TO SMT.JEENA JOSE.

¶33

R3(b):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 19.6.2008 ISSUED TO SRI. FRANCIS K.K.

¶34

R3(c):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ODER DT.D 7.7.2008 ISSUED TO SMT. NICY M.RAPHAEL.

¶35

R3(d):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 3.11.2008 ISSUED TO SMT.AJITH M.R.

¶36

R3(e):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 10.6.2009 ISSUED TO SMT. SHALLY T.VARGHESE.

¶37

R3(f):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 10.6.2009 ISSUED TO SMT.RENJINI PAUL M.

¶38

R3(g):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD 18.6.09 ISSUED TO SMT.BEENA KURIAKOSE.

¶39

R3(h):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 2.11.2009 ISSUED TO SMT.SINI SEBASTIAN.

¶40

tss

¶41

W.P.(C) NO.795/2011

¶42

R3(i):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 30.12.2009 ISSUED TO SMT. JAI MARY MANJALY.

¶43

R3(j):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 4.6.2010 ISSUED TO SMT.JESSY K.JOSE.

¶44

R3(k):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 30.6.2010 ISSUED TO SMT. REENA K.F.

¶45

R3(l):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 13.6.2008 ISSUED TO SMT. BINDU PETER.

¶46

R3(m):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTRD. 25.6.2008 ISSUED TO SMT. ANU DAVIS.

¶47

R3(n):- COP0Y OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 3.6.2009 ISSUED TO SMT. JOSEPHINE SEBASTIAN.

¶48

R3(o):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 1.6.2010 ISSUED TO SMT. SINI SEBASTIAN.

¶49

R3(p):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 1.6.2010 ISSUED TO SMT. RENJINI PAUL.

¶50

R3(q):-COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-7022/10/K.DIS OF THE DEO, CHAVAKKAD DTD. 14.10.2010.

¶51

R3(r):- COPY OF THE DETAILS OF APPROVAL OF TEACHERS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶56

W.P.(C). No. 795 of 2011

¶57

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2012

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

Approval of appointment of several person-s who stand

¶60

juniors to the petitioner is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition.

¶61

The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A in the 3^rd respondent School on 12.6.2008 and the probation was declared as per Ext.P2 order dated 1.9.2010. However, the salary payable to six teachers including the petitioner came to be withheld as per Ext.P3. Being aggrieved of the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation. But, as per Ext.P5 dated 20.4.2011, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It also remains a fact that, as per Ext.P6 order dated 12.5.2011 passed by the additional 4^th respondent, Ext.P3 order passed by the DEO came to the stayed, except in the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, all the remaining 5 persons were much juniors to the petitioner and there was absolutely no rhyme or reason to show discrimination to the petitioner.

¶62

W.P.C. No. 795 of 2011

¶63

-2-

¶64

It is the case of the petitioner that, there was no undeployed protected teacher available in the Educational District and that no list of such teacher was ever furnished by the Educational Officer or the 3^rd respondent Manager. This being the position, the course pursued by the 3^rd respondent Manager in appointing the persons concerned including the petitioner cannot be found fault with; submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶65

Despite the pendency of the matter for more than one year, no counter affidavit has been filed by the Departmental Authorities/State. The 3^rd respondent/Manager has filed a counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit referring to the actual facts and figures. It has been asserted in paragraph '8' of the additional counter affidavit that, appointments of 11 H.S.As. made after the appointment of petitioner in the very same school stand approved as borne by Exts. R3(a) to R3(k). It is stated in the next paragraph that, appointment of 'six' Physical Science H.S.As made under various schools belonging to the Corporate Management after the appointment of petitioner, also

¶66

W.P.C. No. 795 of 2011 -3-

¶67

has been approved by virtue of Exts. R3(l) to R3(q) orders. The 3^rd respondent adds in paragraphs 10 and 11 that, vacancies that arose in the Schools under the Management were filled up with Rule 43 or 51 A claimants or with those who became excess in their own schools due to staff fixation; that there was no undeployed protected teacher available and that the petitioner was appointed on 12.6.2008 and further that the Educational Authorities has never brought to the notice of the 3^rd respondent as to the availability of any undeployed protected teacher in the Educational District, when the vacancy arose and appointment was given to the petitioner.

¶68

The above factual averments in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit/additional counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent have not been controverted by the Departmental Authorities/State so far. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that, if no undeployed protected hand is available in the Educational District and the factual position is brought to the notice of the Manager, the

¶69

W.P.C. No. 795 of 2011 -4-

¶70

appointment given by the Manager is liable to be approved and it cannot be bad in any circumstance referring to non appointment of any protected teacher. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Moosakutty v. District Educational Officer, Wandoor (2009(3) KLT 863) . The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that, the State, after losing the battle in the appeal in similar case, had taken up

¶71

the matter before the Apex Court, where interference was declined and the SLP was dismissed. Further reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Nadeera V. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 790). The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also brought to the notice of this Court that, approval of the appointments have already been made in respect of the teachers appointed in the schools belonged to the Corporate Management as borne by Ext.R3(r), wherein a total of about 'sixty one' teachers are enlisted and that all of them were appointed after the appointment given to the petitioner on 12.6.2008.

¶72

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that, the

¶73

W.P.C. No. 795 of 2011 -5-

¶74

petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned orders Exts. P3, P5 and P6 are set aside and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 12.6.2008 and to grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. The proceedings shall be finalized and disbursement shall be effected at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶75

Writ petition is allowed. No cost.

¶76

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶77

Kp/-

Habna Jose v. the Director of Public Instruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habna Jose v. the Director of Public Instruction

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

Elju Baby Vs the Controller of Examinations

Ajaitha Vs State of Kerala

P.Bindu Vs State of Kerala

E.Geethakumari Vs State of Kerala

P.Manoharan Vs the State of Kerala

V.Indira Vs State of Kerala