Allowed

Leema Alex v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/1489/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's appointment as a High School Assistant. The court directed the approval of the appointment based on the Government's new stand that special qualification need not be insisted upon for Assistant Teachers in Special Schools. Consequential benefits must be disbursed within four months.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the immediate approval of the petitioner's appointment and the disbursement of all consequential benefits within four months.

Leema Alex Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1489 of 2009 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

LEEMA ALEX, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.SUNIL SEBASTIAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (NATURAL SCIENCE), SNEHALAYAM C.S.I. HIGH SCHOOL FOR DEAF KUNNAMKULAM- 680 503 (RESIDING AT MANALATHU HOUSE, P.O., VANIAMPARA -680 652, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, SNEHALAYAM C.S.I HIGH SCHOOL FOR DEAF KUNNAMKULAM 680 503.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 1489 of 2009 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03.07.1999.

¶22

EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE -DO-DO- DATED 28.03.2000.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M5-77846/2000/K.DIS. OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 13.03.2002.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27.03.2002.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 13182/R2/02/G.EDN. OF THE GOVT. DATED 21.06.2002.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVT. DATED 27.10.2003.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M5-94479/99/K.DIS. OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 28.02.2001.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M5/17422/98/K.DIS./DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.1998.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO. 1051/03/G.EDN. OF THE GOVT. DATED 18.03.2003.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO. 2127/2005/GL.EDN. OF THE GOVT. DATED 25.05.2005.

¶31

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO. 2925/2005-W DATED 16.02.2005.

¶32

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO. 25122/2005-N DATED 16.11.2005.

¶33

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO. 58678/R2/2005/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 22.12.2005.

¶34

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO. 3544/06/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 11.08.2006.

¶35

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 30.08.2006.

¶36

EXHIBIT P14(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.2008.

¶37

WP(C).No. 1489 of 2009 (B)

¶38

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1993(2)K.L.T SHORT NOTES PAGE 27 C.NO. 28 DATED 02.08.1993.

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶45

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.1489 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 and P13 orders and to declare that the appointment of the petitioner is liable to be approved. Petitioner is a High School Assistant in Natural Science, appointed in Special School managed by the 5^th respondent. Approval of her appointment was rejected by the 4^th respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the special training qualification and that the Manager did not produce the certificate regarding the non-availability of qualified hands to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. Though the matter was taken in revision, it was also dismissed by Ext.P2 order dated 13.02.2002 by the 2^nd respondent. Ext.P13 is an order passed by the Government rejecting the claim of the petitioner for approval.

¶48

2.,A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, wherein it has stated that by later executive orders, the Government has taken a stand that in the matter of

¶49

¶50

WPC 1489/09

¶51

appointment of Assistant Teachers in Special Schools, special qualification need not be insisted upon. It is, therefore, stated that persons appointed as teachers in Special Schools have a rightful claim for approval and that since the petitioner possesses the required qualifications under Clause 1D or 1B of the G.O.(Ms.) 198/79/G.Edn. dated 22.11.1979, she will be eligible for the approval of appointment against such a post.

¶52

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that appointment of the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P1(a) shall be approved forthwith in terms of what is stated in the counter affidavit. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which shall be calculated and disbursed to her within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

sd/-

¶54

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶55

sj6/10

Leema Alex v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leema Alex v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumari Vs State of Kerala

Fathima.v.P. Vs Director of Public Instruction

Muhammed Shereef P. Vs the State of Kerala

Manager,St.Paul'S College,Kalamassery Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Annie Mathew

K.P. Geetha Vs K.S.E.B.