Allowed

Apsara A.P v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2016RP/602/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court reviewed a judgment that had rejected the petitioners' claim for regularization of their service as lecturers. The bench held that since government concurrence was unnecessary per a cited precedent, the lower court's reliance on an undertaking for such concurrence was erroneous. The review petition was allowed, recalling the earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was allowed, and the judgment dated 28.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 20557/2004 was recalled.

Apsara A.P Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 602 of 2016 (V)

¶6

¶7

-------------

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶9

1. APSARA A.P, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, FATIMA MATA NATIONAL COLLEGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

2. SARAU DEVI A, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, FATIMA MATA NATIONAL COLLEGE, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶15

3. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

4. THE PRINCIPAL, FATIMA MATA NATIONAL COLLEGE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶17

R1,R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT VINNETHA HARIRAJ R3,R4 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC SRI.PAUL JACOB, SC

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.V.

¶20

RP NO 602 OF 2016:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS ANNEURES:

¶23

A1: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO 164/2012 H.DN DATED 1/6/2012.

¶24

A2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 28/3/2016.

¶25

A3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 19.8.2016.

¶26

A4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/11/2014.

¶27

A5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 2450/2006.

¶28

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶33

Review Petition No. 602 of 2016 (V) in W.P.(C) No.20557 of 2004

¶34

-----------------------------------------Dated: 2^nd December, 2016

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The petitioners were persons who were appointed in 2001 and while continuing in the sanctioned post, Pre-Degree was delinked from colleges and the same was conceded to the schools as Plus-2 courses. There was also a ban of appointments of both teaching and non teaching staff for a period of five years from the year 1997, in which year Pre-Degree was delinked. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2001 since there was work load in the colleges and they were appointed as Pre-Degree lecturers only because there was a ban in existence. Subsequently, the petitioners are said to have been approved in regular vacancies by Exts.P3 and P4.

¶37

R.P. No. 602/2016

¶38

-2-

¶39

The approval granted by the University,

¶40

however, was subject to concurrence of the Government, as is seen from Ext.P6. The said concurrence has been held to be unnecessary in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College - 2007 (3) KLT 355 . This Court had rejected the claim of the petitioners on the premise that the undertaking given by the petitioners, for issuance of concurrence, was not in accordance with that sought for by the Government. If the prior permission of the Government is unnecessary, then, of course, there would be no requirement for an undertaking also. The same is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶41

R.P. No. 602/2016

¶42

-3-

¶43

The review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 28.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 20557/2004 is

¶44

recalled.

¶45

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶46

jjj 3/12/16

Apsara A.P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsara A.P 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

Robby Puthuran Vs District Collector

George Moothedan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Anilkumar Vs Kollam Municipal Corporation

Dr.K.R.Jayapal Vs Trivandrum Corporation

Elsy Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Raj Vs Corporation of Kozhikode