Disposed

Mini C.Sunny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016WP(C)/20341/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought approval for the petitioner's service period. The High Court set aside earlier rejections, directing the lower authorities to reconsider pending appeals on merits within two months after receipt of the judgment and documents.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P5 and P9 set aside; 2nd respondent directed to take up appeals as specified and pass orders on merits within two months after petitioner submits documents.

Mini C.Sunny 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20341 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

MINI C.SUNNY, W/O. FANCIS M., LPSA, ADV UP SCHOOL, PERINGANDUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 581, RESIDING AT NEELANGAVIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR-680 006.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

*** 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001. [CORRECTED]**

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKKANHERRY-680 582.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, ADV UP SCHOOL, PERINGANDOOR P.O., THRISSUR-680 581.

¶15

*** R3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.**

¶16

[ADDL.R3 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/06/2016 IN IA.9745/16.]

¶17

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

msv/

¶20

WP(C).No. 20341 of 2014 (P)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2005 CARRYING THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE AEO.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4-6-2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SCHOOL.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF AEO DATED 8-1-2008.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25-11-2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE DEO DATED 5-1-2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2009 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT SCHOOL.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF AEO DATED 6/2011.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 9-8-2011 SUBMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT SCHOOL TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE DEO AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18-2-2012.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AEO DATED 16-12-2011 COPY MARKED TO PETITIONER THROUGH HM.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31-5-2013 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶35

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶41

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 20341 of 2014

¶42

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th October, 2016

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA in the 5^th respondent school for the period from 4.6.2007 to 31.5.2011. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as LPSA in a leave vacancy from 1.6.2005 to 15.7.2006. The said appointment was approved. The petitioner was later appointed in another leave vacancy from 4.6.2007 to 31.12.2011 by Exhibit P2 order. Approval to the said appointment was rejected on the ground that a senior claimant's approval was rejected. It is submitted that approval had been accorded for the appointment of the senior claimant by Exhibit P4. However, even thereafter, by Exhibit P5, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of approval was also dismissed. By Exhibit P6 order, the petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy with effect from 1.6.2009. Approval of this appointment was rejected by Exhibit P7 on the reason that the Manager had not produced the relevant documents enabling such approval. The Manager preferred Exhibit P8 appeal before the District Educational Officer against Exhibit P7 order of the Assistant Educational Officer. Though an order was issued by this Court directing consideration of the appeal, by Exhibit P9

¶45

¶46

WP(C).20341/14

¶47

order dated 18.2.2012, the appeal was rejected on the ground that the appeal was not one preferred within the time prescribed in Rule 8(5) of Chapter XIVA KER. By Exhibit P10 order, the regular appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2009 was noticed, but approval was accorded only with effect from 1.6.2011. The period of service of the petitioner from 4.6.2007 to 31.5.2011, therefore, still remains unapproved.

¶48

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent stating that the approval in the second leave vacancy was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer, since the appointment of a senior claimant Manjula M.P. was not approved. With regard to the rejection of the appeal by Exhibit P9, it is stated that the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad conducted a hearing, but the representative of the Manager had not produced the relevant documents before the appellate authority in time and therefore, the District Educational Officer had rejected the appeal by Exhibit P9.

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the spell of appointment in a leave vacancy with effect from 4.6.2007 was not approved only on the ground that the appointment of the senior claimant Manjula M.P. was not approved. It is submitted that the

¶51

¶52

WP(C).20341/14

¶53

appointment of Manjula M.P. had since been approved by Exhibit P4 proceedings. However, by Exhibit P5, the District Educational Officer again rejected the appeal preferred by the Manager on the ground that the promotion of Manjula M.P. has not been approved. This is clearly without taking note of Exhibit P4 proceedings. Exhibit P9 also proceeds on the basis that no appeal had been preferred by the Manager in time. Exhibit P8 is the appeal preferred by the Manager from Exhibit P7 proceedings. This Court had directed the District Educational Officer to consider the appeal on merits. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the appeal on the ground that it had not been preferred in time is not a contention which was open to the District Educational Officer to have taken while considering such appeal.

¶54

In the result, Exhibits P5 and P9 are set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to take up the appeals preferred by the Manager against Exhibits P3 and P7 orders of rejection of approval by the Assistant Educational Officer and to consider and pass orders on the same on merits after hearing the Manager as well as the petitioner herein. To facilitate such consideration, the petitioner shall produce all documents which she relies upon. If the petitioner makes available a copy of this judgment along with copies of all documents relied by her within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶55

¶56

WP(C).20341/14

¶57

judgment, the District Educational Officer shall hear the petitioner as well as the Manager and pass orders on the appeals as directed above on merits within a period of two months thereafter.

¶58

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶59

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶60

vgs27/10

Mini C.Sunny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini C.Sunny 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

P.S.Soja Vs State of Kerala

Percy Joseph Desmond Vs State of Kerala

Haseena Vs State of Kerala

K.Padmakumaran Nair Vs Kerala Film Development Corpn.& Another

J.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

P K Gopalkrishnan Nair Vs the Commandant, Cisf