Dismissed

Krishnan.K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016WA/1097/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed two writ appeals against earlier Single Judge judgments. The court followed a Division Bench judgment (W.A.1900/14) dismissing a challenge to a Government Order granting exemption from test qualification for teachers over 50. The court held that in absence of specification in Rule 18 of RCE Rules, the Government Order had no substance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Krishnan.K.K Vs 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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 1097 of 2014 IN WP(C).14971/2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14971/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-06-2014

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

KRISHNAN.K.K AGED 45 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI K.K. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (LPSA) THIRUVATTOOR L.P.SCHOOL, THIRUVATTOOR P.O. THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST., PIN-670 502. RESIDING AT K.K.MANA, VELLAVEKUTTIYERI P.O., VIS THALIPARAMBA, PIN 670 141.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 141.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR - 670 141.

¶15

THE MANAGER, THIRUVATTOOR AIDED L.P. SCHOOL, THRIVATTUR P.O TALIMPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 502.

¶16

GEETHAMBAL K.S., HEADMISTRESS, THIRUVATTOOR AIDED L.P SCHOOL THIRUVATOOR P.O, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 502.

¶17

R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.NICHOLAS JOSEPH R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.FAZIL

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 1311/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶20

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

¶21

Writ Appeal Nos.1097 & 1311 of 2014

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Antony Dominic, J.

¶25

These appeals arise from judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition Nos.14971/14 and 17511/14. The controversy was mainly resolved in the judgment in W.P.(C)14971/14, which was followed by the learned Single Judge while deciding Writ Petition 17511/14.

¶26

The main issue that was raised in W.P.(C)14971/14 was the validity of the Government Order granting exemption from test qualification for those teachers who have completed 50 years of age in the matter of appointment as Head Teacher, as per the provisions of Rule 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in the absence of any test qualification having been specified in terms of Rule 18, there arise no occasion for exemption and that, therefore, there is no substance in the challenge raised against the Government Order impugned in the writ petition. This view that the learned Single Judge has taken is what is followed in the judgment in W.P.(C)17511/14 also.

¶27

Writ Appeal Nos.1097 & 1311 of 2014

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

Having heard the counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader and the contesting respondents, we find that the issue stands already decided by a Division Bench of this court in the judgment in W.A.1900/14. Referring to the provisions of Rule 18 in paragraph 4 of the judgment, this court has held thus:

¶30

“Reading of the above Rule shows that a teacher need possess a pass in such departmental tests and test on Kerala Education Act and Rules only if there is a specification to that effect. Such specification must be either by a provision in the Rule itself or at least by an executive order issued by the Government. Appellant has no case that any such Government order has been issued or that the Rule contains any such prescription. If that be so, it has to be accepted that there is no such prescription. In such circumstances, appellant cannot fall back upon on the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules to infer a case of prescription of tests as contemplated under Rule 18.”

¶31

This judgment shows that the Division Bench of this court has

¶32

fully endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgments in these appeals that in the absence of any specification of qualification either in Rule 18 or elsewhere, the requirements of the

¶33

Writ Appeal Nos.1097 & 1311 of 2014

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

provisions contained in Kerala Education Rules cannot be pressed into service.

¶36

In that view of the matter, these appeals do not have any merit

¶37

and are accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶41

jes

Krishnan.K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishnan.K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh Kumar Vs Manjula Sasidharan

Santhosh Sebastian Vs South Malabar Grameen Bank

The Calicut Corporation Vs E.Suresh Babu

Vinodkumar Vs Visalakshy

Vilasini.K. Vs T.K.Rajagopalan and Others

K.v.Viswanathan Vs Sunny Thomas