Partly allowed

Rahul A.V v. the District Educational Officer

Kerala HC5 Jan 2016WP(C)/224/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a High School Assistant seeking approval of her appointment, the High Court of Kerala directed the District Educational Officer to consider the matter expeditiously within three months, explicitly reserving judgment on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the approval of the petitioner's appointment within three months.

Rahul A.V Vs the District Educational Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 224 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAHUL A.V., AGED 30 YEARS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE) MADRASATHUL RAHMANIYA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARYSCHOOL PADNE P.O. - 671 312, KASARAGOD DISTRICT RESIDING AT VYSHAKH, KARIVELLUR - 670 521 KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 121.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

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

¶13

3. THE MANAGER

¶14

MADRASATHUL RAHMANIYA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PADNE P.O. - 671 312, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 224 of 2016 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 - COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 - COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF THE ARIFA M.T.C., BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 - COPY OF THE LETTER NO.44977/J2/2013/G.EDUCATION DATED 14.10.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

----------------------------W.P(C). No.224 of 2016-C

¶27

----------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2016.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner was appointed as an H.S.A.

¶30

(Social Science) in M.R.V.H.S.S., Padne vide Ext.P1 order dated 02.06.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that her appointment has not yet been considered for approval by the 1^st respondent. The limited prayer in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to consider approval of appointment of the petitioner, within a reasonable period.

¶31

In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider approval of appointment of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a

¶32

W.P(C). No.224 of 2016-C

¶33

¶34

certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this Court has not made any observation on merits, which the first respondent will consider in accordance with law.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

P.A. to Judge.

¶40

sp/06/01/16

Rahul A.V v. the District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul A.V v. the District Educational Officer

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

Edakkachi Thambai Vs P.S.Mohamed Sagheer

Rapheekh V.K Vs State of Kerala

S. Laithamma Vs State of Kerala

District Project Co.Ordinator Vs v.v.Viswanathan

Sheeba Vs State of Kerala

J.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala