Disposed

Rani I. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2013WP(C)/20046/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a school appointment. Due to a pending revision petition before the State Government, notices were not issued to specific respondents. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petition and pass orders within three months, including the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directs the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders within three months after notifying the fifth and sixth respondents.

Rani I. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20046 of 2013 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RANI. I, U.P.S.A SANATHANA DHARMA VIDYASALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION. ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, SANATHANA DHARMA VIDYASALA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, BASANT HALL, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶15

6. SHYSREE J.

¶16

MANJU NIVAS, PAZHAVEEDU P.O, ALAPPUZHA- 688 009.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 20046 of 2013 (E)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2011 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2011 OF SMT.A.N.PREETHA.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/8/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20/8/2012 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/8/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF G.O.(P).NO.199/2011/G.EDN DATED 1/10/2011.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 01/04/2011.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 4/8/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J

W.P.(C)No.20046 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2013

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is working as Upper Primary School Assistant in Sanathana Dharma Vidyasala Girls High School, Alappuzha. She was appointed as such as per Ext.P1. The contention of the petitioner is that the said appointment was effected against a vacancy occurred on account of promotion of one Smt.A.N.Preetha on 01/6/2011. It is the further contention that the promotion of Preetha as High School Assistant (Social Science) was approved from 1/6/2011. However, the appointment of the petitioner is UPSA was rejected as per Ext.P3 on the ground that there is no established vacancy. The other ground for the rejection is that the claim of the 6^th respondent under Rule 51 A Chapter-XIV A KER was overlooked while effecting appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P1. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of approval as per Ext.P3 the Manager preferred appeal. However, the said appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order by the 3^rd respondent. Against Ext.P7 order the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 Revision Petition before the Government

¶33

W.P.(C)No.20046 of 2013

¶34

¶35

under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER and it is still pending before the first respondent.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

Taking note of the fact that Ext.P9 Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent and also the order I propose to pass in this writ petition notice need not be issued to the 5^th and 6^th respondent in this proceedings. In view of the fact that Ext.P9 Revision Petition is pending before the first respondent, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition as also in Ext.P9 Revision Petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that, before passing orders thereon the respondents 5 and 6 shall also be put on notice.

¶38

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶39

Rani I. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani I. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Devarajan Vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board

P.Sreeja Ravindran Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. v.M.Monica Vs State of Kerala

Jismith.B.C. Vs Sebannissa Beevi

K.v.Vijayamma Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala

V.N. Sathyavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala & Others