Disposed

Geetha Chandroth v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2014WP(C)/32816/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, decided at the admission stage, involves a teacher challenging the delay in upgrading her post. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after affording a personal hearing to relevant parties within four months, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Geetha Chandroth Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No.32816 of 2014 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEETHA CHANDROTH,W/O.SOMANATHAN.A, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL - TEACHER (JUNIOR) IN MALAYALAM, KOODALI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOODALI P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN - 670 592.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PALLATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE,KANNUR,PIN - 670 002.

¶13

4. THE MANAGER, KOODALI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOODALI P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN - 670 621.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.VIJULAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No.32816 of 2014 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1:TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2-13972/2011 (H) DATED 12/09/2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2:TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2-13972/2011 DATED 05/01/2012 FIXING THE STAFF STRENGTH FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 2011.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3:TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/7078/13 DATED 23/10/2013 FIXING THE STAFF STRENGTH FOR THE YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4:TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A5-3060/2014/D.DIS. DATED 27/05/2014 FIXING THE STAFF STRENGTH FOR THE YEAR 2013 - 2014.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5:TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER NO.A4/13999/2011 DATED 06/01/2012 FIXING THE STAFF STRENGTH FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 2011 IN C.H.MUHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL HSS,KAVUMPADY.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES GO(MS) NO.121/2014/GEDN. DATED 03/07/2014.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P7:TRUE COPOY OF ORDER NO. A1/13966/2011 DATED 20/01/2012 FIXING THE STAFF STRENGTH OF PARASSINIKKADAVU HSS FOR THE YEAR 2010 - 2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P8:TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A5-2954/2014 DATED 24/05/2014.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P9:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P10:TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 28/06/2014.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶36

W.P.(C)No.32816 of 2014 B

¶37

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2014

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶40

Briefly stated, the petitioner, who commenced her continuous service as High School Assistant on 03.06.1985 in a school under the management of the fourth respondent, was later appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) in Malayalam by transfer in the same school with effect from 12.12.2011. As could be seen from the record, the petitioner's appointment as HSST (Junior) was approved with effect from 12.12.2011.

¶41

Complaining that despite sufficient number of students learning Malayalam in the academic years beginning from 2012

¶42

WPC 32816/14

¶43

¶44

and despite the fact that there are sufficient number of periods available for the said subject, the post has not been upgraded, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P9 representation to the first respondent. Complaining of delay in its consideration, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P9 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the fourth respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶47

tkv

Geetha Chandroth v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Chandroth 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anupriya S. Vs University of Calicut

T.v.Krishnan Namboothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

S.Gireesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj.v. Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Krishnan Vs Additional Divisional Railway Manager

Haripriya K.S Vs the State of Kerala