Dismissed

Simi Paul v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2013WP(C)/23979/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Secretary to Government General Education Department to consider revision petitions by school employees challenging appointments within three months, applying the principle from P.K.High School V. State of Kerala without issuing a fresh notice to the school manager.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the First Respondent to consider revision petitions expeditiously within three months, noting observations on protected teacher vacancies.

Simi Paul Vs the 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23979 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SIMI PAUL, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL, THABORE, ANGAMALY-683577 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. P.V.YOHANNAN,CLERK, HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL, THABORE ANGAMALY-683577, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. M.D.BENNY, PEON, HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL, THABORE ANGAMALY-683577, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4. SIBI KUNJU VAREED,FULL-TIME MENIAL, HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL, THABORE ANGAMALY-683577, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶12

SRI.M.SAJJAD SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶16

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682030.

¶17

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683101.

¶18

5. THE MANAGER, HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL, THABORE, ANGAMALY-683577 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.LOWSY

¶20

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

¶21

WP(C).No. 23979 of 2013 (V)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.9.1999 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶25

P2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 21.6.2004 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶26

P3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2007 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶27

P4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 16.10.1985 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶28

P5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 2.6.2008 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶29

P6: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 3.5.1993 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶30

P6(A): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 3.8.1998 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶31

P6(B): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 15.7.2004 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶32

P7: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2008 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶33

P8: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 2.06.2008 AND APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶34

P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.6.2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION.

¶35

P10: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE MANAGER.

¶36

P11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.8.2013.

¶37

P12: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.7.2005.

¶38

P13: COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.199/2011/G.EDN. DATED 1.10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶39

P14: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶40

P15: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.09.2013 (IST PETITIONER) WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶41

P16: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.09.2013 (2ND PETITIONER) WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶42

-2-

¶43

WP(C).No. 23979 of 2013 (V)

¶44

P17: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.09.2013 (3RD PETITIONER) WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶45

P18: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.09.2013 (4TH PETITIONER) WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶46

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J

W.P.(C) No. 23979 of 2013

¶53

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2013

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

Petitioners are working in different posts under the 5^th respondent in Holy Family High School, Thabore. In the case of the first petitioner honouring the claim under 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules he was given re-appointment as High School Assistant (Malayalam). In the case of the second petitioner he was promoted from the post of Peon as Clerk in terms of Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A, KER and in the consequential vacancy the third respondent, who was working as Full Time Menial was given promotion as Peon. The 4^th respondent was a 51-B claimant. Honouring his claim the 5^th respondent offered appointment and consequently, he joined in the post of Full Time Menial in the school on 2.6.2008. The competent educational authority approved the said appointments/promotions of the petitioners. Later, the third respondent raised objections against the appointments/promotions of the petitioners. The matter was thereupon, brought before the second respondent and

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 23979 of 2013

¶57

¶58

consequently, Ext.P11 order was passed. Obviously, as per Ext.P11 order objections raised against promotions/appointments of the petitioners, by the third respondent was upheld. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P11 the petitioners preferred revision petitions viz., Exts.P15 to P18 respectively, before the first respondent. The short prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the first respondent to consider the said revision petitions, expeditiously and in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the objections raised against the appointments/promotions of the petitioners to the effect that such vacancies should have been filled up by protected teachers is unsustainable in the light of the decision of this Court in P.K.High School V. State of Kerala reported in 2011(4) KLT 365. In fact a specific ground in that regard was taken relying on the said decision, in all the revision petitions. When such specific ground is taken it is incumbent on the first respondent to consider the applicability of the said decision to the facts and circumstances obtained in this

¶59

case. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 23979 of 2013

¶61

¶62

taking note of the pendency of the aforementioned revision petition before the first respondent I think it unnecessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent in this proceedings. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P15 to P18 revision petitions expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment taking note of the observations made hereinbefore, as well. Needless to say that before passing orders thereon the 5^th respondent shall also be put on notice.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.

¶65

dlk

Simi Paul v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simi Paul v. the 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

K.P.Krishnakumar Vs Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh IAS

Vineetha.P.M. Vs the District Educational Officer

N.Reghunath Vs the Tdb

Bijoy Kumar v., S/O.Velayudhan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Mohammed a. Vs State of Kerala

Jahangir Kasim Vs State of Kerala