Disposed

K.Sahadevan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016WP(C)/215/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order refusing reinstatement due to pending criminal appeal. He relied on a subsequent High Court judgment reversing his conviction. The Court directed the 4th respondent to reconsider his reinstatement request accounting for the reversal.

What did the court decide?

Fourth respondent directed to consider petitioner's request for reinstatement approval taking into account the reversing judgment passed this Court on 15.02.2016.

K.Sahadevan Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 215 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K. SAHADEVAN, SON OF M.APPU, AGED 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, PALLIAM AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.O. THILLENKERY-670 703, KANNUR DISTRICT, (RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, KALANTHODE, P.O. NADUVANADU, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 702.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 003.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 101.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT -670 703.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, PALLIAM AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, P.O. THILLENKERY-670 703, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 215 of 2012 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 31.05.2011.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 20.06.2011.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRMA NO.7230/2011 IN CRL.A NO. 859/2011 DATED 18.08.2011.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.08.2011.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 31.08.2011.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE TEACHERS ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE SCHOOL FOR THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2011 DATED NIL.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NDIS G/6261/2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2011.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G/3523/2011 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 25.12.2011.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.859/2011 DATED 15/02/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

W.P(C).No. 215 of 2012

¶28

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st October, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P8 order of the 4^th respondent Assistant Educational Officer as also seeking a direction to approve the reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from 1.9.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner had been dismissed from service on his conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 by judgment dated 18.4.2011 in S.C.No.1683/2005 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Thalassery. By Exhibit P3 order dated 18.8.2011, the petitioner's sentence was suspended and he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, by Exhibit P5, the petitioner was reinstated by the Manger. However, his salary was not paid on the ground that the criminal appeal is pending before this Court. By Exhibit P8 dated 25.12.2011, the 4^th respondent stated that the petitioner had not been fully exonerated and that permission had not been granted to reinstate the petitioner in service.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

WP(C).215/12

¶34

The petitioner contends that by Exhibit P9 judgment, the conviction entered against the petitioner has been reversed on 15.2.2016. He seeks that his claim for reinstatement and for all benefits should be considered on the basis of Exhibit P9 judgment.

¶35

The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the reinstatement of the petitioner had not been approved, since Exhibit P3 was only an order suspending the sentence and enlarging the petitioner on bail. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement can be considered only after final judgment is rendered in the criminal appeal. It is contended that Exhibit P8 was in terms of the statutory rules.

¶36

By Exhibit P9, the conviction against the petitioner has now been set aside. The authorities did not have occasion to consider Exhibit P9, since the salary bill had been forwarded on the petitioner's reinstatement before the date of Exhibit P9. Rejection of approval for the reinstatement is also on the reason that the criminal appeal has not been finally disposed of. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that it is not known whether any appeal has been preferred against Exhibit P9 judgment.

¶37

In the above circumstances, the 4^th respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for approval of his reinstatement

¶38

¶39

WP(C).215/12

¶40

and to pass a reasoned order thereon taking into account Exhibit P9 also. Orders as directed above shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶42

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

vgs26/10

K.Sahadevan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sahadevan 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

O.K.Sivaraman Vs the State of Kerala and Others

S.Appukuttan Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Sasidharan Sachu Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumar Vs Issac Varghese

Dephina David Vs Stateof Kerala

Fr. Varghese Koothoor Vs District Education Officer, Chavakkad