Allowed

T.B.Bijisha v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Nov 2016WP(C)/20092/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the 4th respondent to immediately approve the petitioner's appointment as a Part Time Sanskrit Teacher effective from 01.08.2012. The order was upheld amidst a school management dispute, with a directive to process orders and release benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to immediately consider and approve the petitioner's appointment as Part Time Sanskrit Teacher from 01.08.2012 and release monetary benefits within two months.

T.B.Bijisha Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20092 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

T.B.BIJISHA,

¶8

JUNIOR SANSKRIT TEACHER, RAKM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE-673 317.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 017.

¶15

5. SRI.P.GOVINDAN, MANAGER, RAKM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THALAKULATHUR, (RESIDING AT PADANNAKALATHIL HOUSE, P.O.THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 317).

¶16

6. SRI. P.K.SATHYAN, HEADMASTER-IN-CHARGE, RAKM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE-673 317.

¶17

7. SRI. P.K.RARICHAN PADANNAKALATHIL, THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE-673 317.

¶18

R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR R6 & R7 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

¶19

SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Msd.

¶22

WP(C).No. 20092 of 2012 (J)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT.P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.A.NO.422/2000-A, DATED 27.09.2007.
EXT.P1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT DATED NIL.
EXT.P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.6088/06 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, DATED 04.02.2009.
EXT.P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B/2539/2012 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, DATED 07.06.2012.
EXT.P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.08.2012.
EXT.P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, DATED 06.08.2012.
EXT.P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B/2539/2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2012.
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 30.11.2012.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 02.04.2013.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 03.11.2015.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 20919/2015-L DATED 10.12.2015.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.20092 of 2012

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is a Junior Sanskrit Teacher in the

¶38

RAKM Upper Primary School, Thalakulathur. She was appointed by Ext.P4 order dated 01.08.2012 by the 5^th respondent. It was submitted that there was a dispute regarding the management of the school pending in the civil court as also before this Court. By Ext.P1 compromise decree, the civil dispute was compromised and it was decided that the 5^th respondent who had appointed the petitioner would be entitled to be the Manager of the school from 01.06.2012 onwards, for a period of 3 years. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Assistant District Educational Officer. However, by Ext.P6 order dated 09.08.2012, citing the pendency of WP(C) Nos.14691/2012 and 16271/12 before this Court, the Assistant Educational Officer passed an order, keeping Ext.P4 order in abeyance. It is submitted that the

¶39

W.P.(C) No.20092 of 2012

¶40

-2-

¶41

appointment of the petitioner had not been approved till date, since the said freezing of Ext.P4 was in force. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Ext.P7 order dated 30.11.2012 by which, the approval of the 5^th respondent as Manager from 01.06.2012 to 31.05.2015 was approved. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2012, is liable to be approved by the 4^th respondent, in accordance with law.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶43

well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶44

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the approval for appointment of the petitioner was delayed, only on the ground of the existence of a management dispute. Since the person who appointed the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher was not a total stranger to the management and since there were orders approving his

¶45

W.P.(C) No.20092 of 2012

¶46

-3-

¶47

appointment as Manager, at the time when the petitioner was appointed, it is contended that there no justification whatsoever, in delaying the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher.

¶48

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that though Ext.P1 compromise was entered into on 27.09.2007, there were further disputes regarding management of the school and writ petitions were also filed before this Court. It is stated that it is only in those circumstances that Ext.P6 order was passed, keeping the approval of appointment of the 5^th respondent as Manager in abeyance. It is contended that it is only due to this reason that the petitioner's appointment was not approved.

¶49

I have considered the contentions advanced on

¶50

either side. It is clear that the person who had appointed the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher was entitled to act as a Manager, terms of Ext.P1 compromise decree, with effect from

¶51

W.P.(C) No.20092 of 2012

¶52

-4-

¶53

01.06.2012. In any view of the matter, by Ext.P7 order dated 30.11.2012, the 4^th respondent has accorded approval for appointment of the 5^th respondent as Manager, from 01.06.2012 to 31.05.2015. Therefore as of now, there exists no impediment whatsoever, for the 4^th respondent to consider the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher from 01.08.2012.

¶54

In the above view of the matter, the 4^th respondent is directed to immediately consider the request for approval of the petitioner's appointment as Part Time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 01.08.2012. Since approval was denied for the sole reason that the 5^th respondent was not the approved Manager, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's appointment is liable to be approved. It is so declared. Orders approving the appointment of the petitioner shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and monetary benefits shall be calculated and

¶55

W.P.(C) No.20092 of 2012

¶56

-5-

¶57

released to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.

¶58

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶59

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶60

T.B.Bijisha v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.B.Bijisha v. the 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

Smt. Valsa Thattil Vs the Manager

T.Ayissu Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.K Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Prakashan Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Sreedharan Nair Vs Kerala Water Authaority