Disposed

K.P.Satheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016WP(C)/20940/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter, the petitioner challenged the rejection of their revision petition regarding appointment and pay scale. The court dispensed with notice to the manager and directed the competent authority to dispose of the pending revision within six weeks after affording an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition was finally disposed of based on these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to consider the revision petition without delay, afford an opportunity of being heard, and decide within six weeks.

K.P.Satheer Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20940 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.P.SATHEER, L.P.S.A, NIRMALA L.P. SCHOOL, MALAMURI, PULLUVAZHY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶11

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

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

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERUMBAVOR-683 542

¶15

5. THE MANAGER, NIRMALA L.P. SCHOOL, MALAMURI, PULLUVAZHY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 541.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIYAS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 20940 of 2016 (N)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 2.6.2008 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DT. 15.7.08 OF THE YEAR 2008-2009

¶24

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 7.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶27

P6: TRUE COPY OF REVISION.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.20940 Of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 21st day of June, 2016.

¶36

It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary

¶37

School Assistant in the 5^th respondent-Aided Lower Primary School as per Ext.P-1 appointment order dated 2.6.2008. But that, Ext.P-1 appointment order dated 2.6.2008 was approved from 15.7.2008 to 31.3.2009 only on daily wage basis and from 15.7.2008 approval was granted for pay and allowances in the regular scale of pay attached to that post. The ground stated by the 4th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer for approval of the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 15.7.2008 to 31.3.2009 on daily wage basis is that the staff fixation order for the academic year 2008-09 came into force on 15.7.2008 and that therefore the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA could be approved for the regular scale of pay only with effect from 15.7.2008. Being aggrieved by the order of the 4^th respondent, the

¶38

::2::

¶39

W.P(C).No.20940 Of 2016

¶40

5^th respondent-Manager had filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent-District Educational Officer, which was rejected as per Ext.P-4 order. This in turn was challenged by a review petition before the 2nd respondent-Director of Public Instructions, which was also rejected as per Ext.P-5 order dated 25.5.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent-DPI. Now, it is stated that against the impugned revisional order dated 25.5.2012, the petitioner has filed a statutory revision as per Ext.P-6 before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and the same is pending consideration. That the 1st respondent-Government has

¶41

not yet passed order in Ext.P-6 and that the ground of rejection is highly specious and untenable and any further delay in getting the petitioner's claim adjudicated will entail irreparable damage and injury to the petitioner. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the following prayers:

¶42

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P-5, P-4 orders and quash the same;

¶43

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P-6 Revision petition as expeditiously as possible;

¶44

::3::

¶45

W.P(C).No.20940 Of 2016

¶46

(iii) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶47

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶48

that the limited prayer sought before this Court is for a direction to ensure speedy consideration and disposal of Ext.P-6 representation at the hands of the 1^st respondent-Government. In the light of this limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, there is no necessity to issue notice to the 5^th respondent-Manager and notice to him is dispensed with. More so, in the nature of the relief that is proposed to be issued in the matter.

¶49

Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the

¶50

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4.

¶51

Taking into account the facts and circumstances disclosed in this case and in view of the limited prayer sought for in the matter and without going into the controversy in the pleadings of the matter, it is ordered that in case Ext.P-6 revision petition is still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent, then the competent authority among the official respondents shall take up

¶52

::4::

¶53

W.P(C).No.20940 Of 2016

¶54

the same for consideration without any further delay and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the manager, will take a considered decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The contentions urged by the petitioner in Ext.P-6 revision petition should be specifically adverted to and considered by the 1^st respondent while taking the decision as directed above.

¶55

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

¶56

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶57

bkn/-

K.P.Satheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Satheer 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

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Bhadran Vs State of Kerala

K.D.Gopalakrishnan Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Toms Ignatius Vs the Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd.

Vasu K.K & Another Vs State of Kerala & Another

Baby Vs Subin P.J.