Allowed

Bindu.C.v v. the Manager

Kerala HC3 Jul 2013WA/478/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenged the rejection of an appointment as High School Assistant (English) by Ext.P9 order. The High Court held that while the initial rejection was correct due to lack of specific vacancies, the post became vacant upon retirement of another teacher. The court directed the appellant to make a representation for reconsideration and mandated that no other appointment be made agai

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to make representation for appointment; school directed to consider within three months; no other appointment against this vacancy allowed.

Bindu.C.v Vs the Manager — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2013/12TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WA.No. 478 of 2013 () IN WP(C).20383/2010

¶6

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

BINDU.C.V HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH) CHAMI AYYER HIGH SCHOOL, PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE MANAGER CHAMI AYYER HIGH SCHOOL, PERUVAMBA PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678531.

¶12

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD-678001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD-678001.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.MANIKANTAN R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J. &

¶18

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal No.478 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Manjula Chellur,CJ

¶22

The appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P9 order rejecting her appointment as High School Assistant (English) at C.A.High school, Peruvemba, Palakkad. It is not in dispute that she is a graduate in English with B.Ed and was appointed as H.S.A (English) as early as 05.06.2006. However, her appointment was rejected by virtue of Ext.P9 on the ground that an ex-H.S.A (Natural Science) by name Kunjamma Abraham was called back and accommodated in promotion vacancy created on account of promotion of Smt. Sheela P Nair as Headmistress and the second reason was there was a claim under Section 51B. So far as 2^nd reason that a claimant under 51B was waiting for appointment, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the same. Then coming to the

¶23

Writ Appeal No.478 of 2013

¶24

¶25

other reason, on perusal of the table on the 2^nd page of the judgment, it clearly indicates, one excess teacher in Mathematics and two excess teachers in Social Science are already working out of the total strength of 15 H.S.As. It is surprising to note that, no HSA (English) was appointed in this school at least from 2006 onwards, though it was declared as a core subject as per Rule 6(I) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. So far as Kunjamma Abraham H.S.A, she was called back to this school when a vacancy arose on account of promotion of Smt. Sheela P Nair as Headmistress. As in 2006 and 2007 all the 15 teachers in the cadre of HSA were very much in existence, there was no clear vacancy to approve the appointment of this appellant. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying, she cannot claim the vacancy that arose on account of promotion of Smt.Sheela P Nair.

¶26

We were informed during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for appellant that Smt.Kunjamma Abraham retired in 2008 and that post is not yet filled up. In that view of the matter, the strength of HSAs in all the core subjects would be only 14 as against sanctioned 15. Therefore, though Ext.P9 is

¶27

Writ Appeal No.478 of 2013

¶28

¶29

correct so far as 2006-2007, however, the appellant can be accommodated against the vacancy created from the date of retirement of Smt.Kunjamma Abraham.

¶30

In this context, we direct the appellant to make a representation which shall be forwarded by the school to the Government and the respondent-authorities shall consider the same in accordance with the procedure within three months from the date of receipt of representation. However, we further direct the respondent-school not to recommend or appoint any one else against this vacancy. The respondent-authorities shall give a hearing to the appellant to explain, after receiving the representation.

¶31

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.

¶32

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶34

sj4/7

Bindu.C.v v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu.C.v v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Ismail Vs V.K. Radhakrishnan

C.Kalavathy Vs Smt.T.Kocha

Rajani.B Vs Sreekrishna Agithaya

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs C.N.Sreedharan

G.Lakshmikutty Amma Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs the Taluk Surveyor