The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal challenging a judgment declaring an employee's claim for a teaching post. The court held that the appeal failed as it was premature to challenge a mixed question of law and fact for the first time.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/22ND MAGHA, 1937
WA.No. 263 of 2016 () IN WP(C).17300/2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 17300/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15-12-2015
APPELLANT(S)//PETITIONER IN WP(C):
T.HARIDAS
H S A (MATHS), SAHODARAN MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHERAI, ERNAKULAM - 683514
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C0:
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695001
SAHODARAN MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL V V SABHA EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM -683514
HSA(MATHS), SAHODARAN MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHERAI, ERNAKULAM - 683514
R3 BY SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR R4 BY SRI.K.K.ASHKAR
R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
W.A.No.263 of 2016
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Appellant filed W.P.(C) No.17300 of 2014, asserting his claim for the post of HSA (Maths) in the school where the third respondent is the manager, mainly relying on the findings in Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this Court in O.P.No.4114 of 2001, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.177 of 2010 (Ext.P4 judgment). According to the appellant, his rights for the next arising vacancy having been recognized in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments, the manager could not have appointed the additional fourth respondent. However, the fact that the additional fourth respondent is a claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (in short, “KER”) is undisputed. Therefore, such a statutory claim of the additional fourth respondent cannot in any manner be diluted by the findings contained in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments of this Court to which additional fourth respondent was not a party. Therefore the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for the aforesaid view that he has taken.
2
WA No.263/2016
bound by the findings therein. According to the learned counsel, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Peirce Leslie India Ltd. v. Secretary, C.I.T.U. (2006 (1) KLT 869) , the statutory claim, if any, of the additional fourth respondent cannot be relied on to negative the claim of appellant against a vacancy. We are unable to agree, not only for the reason that additional fourth respondent is a statutory claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of KER and also for the reason that she is not a party to the previous judgments. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claim of appellant is under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of KER and therefore, he has a claim which is superior to additional fourth respondent. We find that such an argument was not raised before the learned Single Judge or has not been dealt with in the judgment. This being a mixed question of law and fact, if the appellant wants to challenge the same, the proper course for him is to seek review of the judgment instead of urging the same in an appeal for the first time.
Writ appeal fails. It is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the statutory claim of an additional claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of KER can be relied upon to negative the appellant's claim.
Whether the appellant could raise the claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of KER for the first time in a writ appeal.
Whether the learned Single Judge's view that the statutory claim of Rule 43 cannot be diluted by previous judgments to which the claimant was not a party is correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Peirce Leslie India Ltd. v. Secretary, C.I.T.U.Distinguished¶34
(2006 (1) KLT 869)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
T. HARIDAS
STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ERNAKULAM
THE MANAGER SAHODARAN MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VV SABHA EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
P K LATHEESHA
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM
ANTONY DOMINIC
A. HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
