Disposed

K.P.Pramod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2016WP(C)/15680/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the regularization of the petitioner's appointment as a High School Assistant, the High Court of Kerala ordered the State Government to consider the revision petition without delay, affording an opportunity of hearing, and decide within three months. Notice to the Manager was dispensed.

What did the court decide?

Directed State Government to consider revision petition with hearing of parties and decide within three months.

K.P.Pramod Kumar 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15680 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.P.PRAMOD KUMAR,

¶8

AGED 42 YEARS, KIZHAKKUMPATTU MADAM, P.O.ANJIKKARAPPADI, WORKING AS H.S.A. ENGLISH IN SEVAMANDIR POST BASIC HSS, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DITRICT-673 633.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.R.LEELA SRI.K.K.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-676 505.

¶14

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶15

5. THE MANAGER, SEVAMANDIR POST BASIC HSS, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 633.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.LOWSY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 15680 of 2016 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 8/6/20007.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT VIDE ITS ORDER NO.56/2011/G.E.D. DATED 26/2/2011.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/5113/2014/LDIS DATED 16/4/2015 ISSUED BY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT-P4: TRHE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.4497/J2/2013/G EDN DATED 14/10/2015. EXHIBIT-P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.56298/B1/2015/G.EDN. DATED 24/11/2015. EXHIBIT-P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1/12/2015 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 15680 of 2016

¶33

==================

¶34

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶35

It is averred by the petitioner that he was appointed as High School Assistant (H.S.A) (English) with effect from 8.6.2007 in the vacancy that was caused due to the promotion of the incumbent holding that post as Headmistress of the High School. The 5^th respondent Manager is said to have duly submitted proposal for approval of the said appointment of the petitioner in the vacancy of H.S.A.(English) and that the same was approved by the 4^th respondent District Education Officer (DEO), Kozhikode, by stipulating that the portion of the period of service from 8.6.2007 to 31.3.2008 will be treated as one of daily wage basis and that he will be entitled for regular pay and allowances only with effect from 2.6.2008. The 4^th respondent is said to have taken a stand that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A.(English) by restricting the regular pay and allowances only for the period from 2.6.2008 was based on G.O(P)No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated 10.6.2008

¶36

W.P.(C).15680/16 - : 2 :-

¶37

issued by the Government in the General Education Department. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently Ext.P-2 G.O(P)No.56/ 11/G.Edn. dated 26.2.2011 was issued by the State Government, wherein it has been ordered that any appointment with duration of 8 months or more can be approved on regular basis even if the appointment is not made in the beginning of the academic year. The petitioner's attempt for regularisation of his appointment as H.S.A.(English) with all the benefits of regular pay and allowances with effect from the date of initial appointment on 8.6.2007 was rejected by the 4^th respondent DEO as per the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 16.4.2015. The ground stated in the impugned Ext.P-3 rejection order is that Ext.P-2 G.O(P) dated 26.2.2011 will have prospective effect only from 26.2.2011 and cannot be invoked in the case of the petitioner, who seeks regularisation for a prior period commencing from 8.6.2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent DEO had not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and had mechanically rejected the application of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner without considering Ext.P-2 G.O dated 26.2.2011 in its correct and proper perspective. It is also pointed out that aggrieved

¶38

W.P.(C).15680/16 - : 3 :-

¶39

by Ext.P-3 rejection order issued by the 4^th respondent DEO, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P-6 statutory revision before the 1^st respondent State Government by invoking the powers conferred under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. It is also pointed out that similar benefit as the one claimed in Ext.P-6 has been granted by the 1^st respondent Government to an LPSA in an aided school at Parappanangadi, as evident from Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 24.11.2015 issued by the 1^st respondent Government. In the background of these facts and circumstances the petitioner has instituted the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

¶40

“i. To issue a writ (sic) a writ of certiorari or any other order/direction and quash Exhibit P3 being issued arbitrarily and against the principles of natural justice.

¶41

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent herein to reconsider and regularize the appointment of petitioner with effect from 8.6.2007 based on Ext.P6 representation.

¶42

ii. Issue appropriate writ order or direction as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper from time to time for this petitioner to attain the ends of justice.”

¶43

Heard Smt.R.Leela, learned counsel appearing for the

¶44

writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the relief that is

¶45

proposed to be granted in this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to

¶46

W.P.(C).15680/16 - : 4 :-

¶47

issue notice to R-5 Manager and therefore notice to R-5 stands dispensed with.

¶48

It is now pointed out by both sides that, on being aggrieved by Ext.P-3 rejection order, the petitioner has invoked the revisional remedy before the State Government as per Ext.P-6 petition dated 1.12.2015 filed before the 1^st respondent Government. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter and after hearing both sides, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case Ext.P-6 revision petition has already been received and is pending consideration, then the competent authority of the 1^st respondent Government will immediately take up Ext.P-6 revision petition for consideration without any further delay and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent Manager, take a considered decision thereon in accordance with law. The State Government will advert to the contention of the petitioner that similar benefit as the one claimed by the petitioner has already been given by the 1^st respondent Government to an LPSA in an aided school in Parappanangadi as evident from Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 24.11.2015. A report of the 4^th respondent DEO may be called for by the Government and copy

¶49

W.P.(C).15680/16 - : 5 :-

¶50

of the same should also be made available to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent Manager before taking the decision. Final decision in the matter as directed above should be taken by the State Government without much delay, at any rate, within an outer time limit of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy///

¶54

P.S. To Judge.

K.P.Pramod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Pramod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuttappan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Mahakavi Kumaranasan Smaraka Sangham Vs Binu Thachadi

M/S. Hope Plantations Vs Mr. Vinod

K. Sreelatha Vs Government of Kerala

C.R. Indukumar Vs the State of Kerala

C v Thankamma Vs the Project Officer