Dismissed

Lathakutty K.S v. Valsala Kumari Devi

Kerala HC25 May 2016WA/933/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a judgment directing the respondent authority to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's view that notional seniority from a retrospective judicial order could be reckoned for teaching experience requirements.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no interference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Lathakutty K.S Vs Valsala Kumari Devi — 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WA.No. 933 of 2016 () IN WP(C).3381/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3381/2015 DATED 29-02-2016

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/6TH RESPONDENT :-

¶8

LATHAKUTTY K.S, PRINCIPAL, B.A.R.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN, P.O.MULIYAR, KASARAGOD - 671 542.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 :-

¶11

1. VALSALA KUMARI DEVI M., AGED 53 YEARS D/O. THE LATE P. NARAYANAN NAIR, HSST (HISTORY), B.A.R HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN, P.O.MULIYAR, KASARAGOD - 671 542, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, CHATTANCHAL, P.O THEKKIL, CHANGALA, KASARAGOD - 671 541.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

4. MANAGER, B.A.R HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN, P.O.MULIYAR, KASARAGOD - 671 542.

¶15

5. PRINCIPAL, B.A.R HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN, P.O.MULIYAR, KASARAGOD - 671 542.

¶16

BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) BY SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-052016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Antony Dominic & Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.

¶19

- - - - W.A. No. 933 OF 2016

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Antony Dominic, J.

¶24

The 6^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3381 of 2015, which

¶25

was filed by the 1^st respondent herein, is the appellant.

¶26

The issue raised in the writ petition was with respect to the claim of the 1^st respondent for appointment to the

¶27

post of Principal of the School of which the 5^th respondent herein is the Manager. By the judgment under appeal setting aside the impugned order, the learned Single Judge upheld the entitlement of the 1^st respondent for appointment as Principal of the school of the 4^th respondent and on that basis the 2^nd respondent herein was directed to issue fresh orders. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

¶28

We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel for the 1^st respondent, Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4 and counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6.

¶29

Briefly stating the facts of the case that the 1^st respondent was appointed as HSST(History) on probation in the

¶30

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶31

school of the 5^th respondent at Kasaragod and she joined duty in the Forenoon of 16.02.2008. Her appointment was approved by Ext.P4 order dated 25.09.2008 with effect from 16.02.2008. She thereafter claimed that the appointment as HSST should be with effect from 01.08.2000, the date on which one 'Aravindakshan Nambiar', a rival claimant, was promoted overlooking her rightful

¶32

claim. This controversy was set at rest by Ext.P6 common judgment of this Court in WA Nos.421, 463 & 621 of 2011 by which this Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the 1^st respondent and directed the authorities to reckon her seniority with effect from 01.08.2000, along with notional promotion and other benefits. This judgment was implemented by Ext.P7 order. Subsequently, Ext.P8 proceedings were issued approving the appointment of the 1^st respondent with effect from 01.08.2000.

¶33

While matters stood thus, vacancy in the post of Principal arose with effect from 01.04.2010. Though the 1^st respondent submitted Ext.P10 representation claiming promotion, ignoring the same, the 6^th respondent-appellant was appointed as

¶34

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

Principal with effect from 01.04.2010. On a representation made to him, the 4^th respondent herein issued Ext.P13 letter to the Manager requiring him to promote the 1^st respondent in accordance with rules. That direction was not complied with. Finally, the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P16 order rejecting the claim of the 1^st respondent and stating that her promotion as HSST with effect from 01.08.2000 was only notional and that she had not acquired the 6 years of teaching experience in the post of HSST as on 01.04.2010. Therefore, according to him, the 1^st respondent did not acquire the eligibility prescribed under Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of KER.

¶37

However, on coming to know of Ext.P16, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings again requiring the Manager that since the seniority of the 1^st respondent was fixed in the post of HSST with effect from 01.08.2000, the period thereafter was liable to be reckoned for all service benefits and that hence the action of the Manger in appointing the appellant as Principal was irregular. On that basis Ext.P16 was cancelled and by Ext.P17

¶38

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

the Manager was directed to consider the matter afresh. To make matters worse, in the mean time, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1^st respondent on the basis that she had mislead the Court by providing incorrect address of the party respondents to the writ petition. That resulted in an order dated 27.09.2013 imposing a major penalty of reduction to a lower rank. Since the penalty imposed was not in compliance of Rule 75 of Chapter XIV A KER, the Manager was issued Ext.P18 show cause notice whereby the 3^rd respondent called upon him to show cause why he shall not be debarred from the post of Manager.

¶41

Despite of all these, the Manager did not appoint the 1^st respondent and therefore she filed W.P.(C) No.6376 of 2014 which resulted in Ext.P19 judgment directing the Government to pass orders on Ext.R4(c) appeal filed by the Manager against Ext.P17. Suffice it to say that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was vacated by Ext.P21 order and the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P22 order to the Manager directing

¶42

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

regularisation of the period of suspension of the 1^st respondent. Thereafter the 2^nd respondent herein issued Ext.P23 order in the purported compliance of Ext.P19 judgment holding that the 1^st respondent does not possess the essential teaching experience and hence her request for promotion to the post of Principal did not deserve merit. It was in these circumstances the writ petition was filed.

¶45

As is evident from the judgment under appeal itself the controversy in the writ petition was mainly whether the retrospective promotion granted to the 1^st respondent with effect from 01.08.2000 notionally as HSST, is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of teaching experience, as provided under Note 3 of Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII KER and whether the said notional promotion granted with effect from 01.08.2000 can be reckoned for counting 6 years of minimum experience provided for promotion to the post of Principal.

¶46

Having heard the counsel for the parties, and also

¶47

considering the factual issues and the precedents that are noticed

¶48

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶49

-:6:-

¶50

in the judgment, we are inclined to think that on the facts of the case the learned Single Judge was fully justified in taking such view. It is true that in terms of Note 3 to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII KER, those teachers falling in the category of Note 1 must possess a minimum service of 6 years for appointment as Principal.

¶51

In so far as this case is concerned, as we have have already stated, the vacancy to which the 1^st respondent has been appointed as HSST arose on 01.08.2000. Though she was the person eligible for appointment to the vacancy, overlooking her claim, the Manager appointed one Aravindakshan Nambiar. The 1^st respondent had to approach the statutory authorities unsuccessfully and finally she succeeded in getting directions from Supreme Court upholding her claim. It was thereafter that ultimately by Ext.P3 order she was appointed. Even at the time when she was appointed, the same was made effective only from 16.02.2008. Again she had to resort to judicial remedies at various forums which ultimately culminated in Ext.P6 common

¶52

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶53

-:7:-

¶54

judgment, where this Court upheld her claim for seniority and other benefits with effect from 01.08.2000. It was in these factual circumstances that the learned Single Judge held that the said period of service from 01.08.2000 is eligible to be reckoned as teaching experience for promotion.

¶55

Yet another aspect that is required to be noticed in

¶56

this context is Ext.P20. Ext.P20 is the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.26937 of 2013. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein. It is evident from the prayers that are extracted from the judgment itself that by prayer Nos.1 and 3 she asserted her entitlement for continuance in the post of Principal. In this writ petition the 1^st respondent was the 5^th respondent. After examining the rival claims by Ext.P20 judgment, this Court rejected the case of the appellant by holding thus :

¶57

“In short, it is evident that in terms of Ext.P3 the 5^th respondent is entitled to get reckoned her seniority with effect from 01.08.2000 along with notional promotion and other benefits granted with effect from that date. Virtually, Ext.P4 was passed by the first respondent in tune with the findings in Exts.P2 and P3

¶58

W.A. No. 933 of 2016

¶59

-:8:-

¶60

judgments. In such circumstances, Ext.P4 to the extent it orders to fix seniority of the 5^th respondent in the post of HSST with effect from 01.08.2000 and further to reckon the same for such other benefits in terms of Exts.P2 and P3 can only be held as legal. Ext.P7 can only be taken as a consequential order. In view of the finding that Ext.P4 is an order passed in tune with Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, Exts.P4 and P7 orders call for no interference. In the said circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.”

¶61

The above judgment has become final and binding on

¶62

the parties. For all these reasons we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

¶63

Sd/- Antony Dominic, Judge.

¶64

Dama Seshadri Naidu,

¶65

ttb/26/05

Lathakutty K.S v. Valsala Kumari Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lathakutty K.S v. Valsala Kumari Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baffaki Yatheem Khana Vs Abdulla Koya

Niramarathur Korangath Juma Masjid Vs Muhammed Kutty @ Mamu

K.Avara Haji Vs T.Muhammed

M/S.Kodiyeri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Late Smt.Khairunnisa Ebrahim

M/S. Best Buy Electronics Vs State