Disposed

Meera K v. the District Educational Officer, Malappuram

Kerala HC13 Jul 2016WP(C)/23366/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition concerned the petitioner's claim for appointment in a newly created vacancy. The Court directed the 2nd respondent school manager to consider the petitioner's representation without delay after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent school manager to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks after affording a hearing opportunity.

Meera K Vs the District Educational Officer, Malappuram — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23366 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MEERA K

¶8

W/O. SAJEESH KUMAR, CHALATTIL HOUSE, PADINHATTUMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶10

SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MALAPPURAM-676 519.

¶13

2. THE COMMANDANT MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE, EX-OFFICIO MANAGER, M.S.P.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶14

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIYAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-072016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 23366 of 2016 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 COPY OF THE B.A.DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
P2 COPY OF THE M.A.DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
P3 COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
P4 COPY OF THE STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
P5 COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 26.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P6 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER.
P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.1.2015 IN WPC NO.17338/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.6.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

avk

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C).No.23366 of 2016

¶24

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The case projected in the aforecaptioned writ petition

¶27

(Civil) is as follows:-

¶28

The petitioner herein was appointed in the post of High School Assistant (English), viz., HSA (English) for short in the second respondent Malabar Special Police Higher Secondary School (M.S.P.H.S.S), Malappuram by the Manager of the said school, in a leave vacancy that arose from 1.6.2013. It is stated that though the petitioner was appointed as HSA (English), she was disabled from joining on duty in view of an interim order of stay granted by this Court in W.P.(C).No.17338 of 2013 filed by one Smt.P.N.Shyni, who was working as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in the second respondent Aided School. It is pointed out that now the vacancy of HSA (English) has arisen in the second respondent school on 1.6.2016 due to the deployment of another incumbent in the post of HSA and to that vacancy, the aforementioned Smt.P.N.Shyni, who is qualified as on the date of occurrence of that vacancy, is entitled to be promoted as HSA and that consequently a vacancy in the lower category of UPSA would arise in the second respondent school,

¶29

W.P.(C).No.23366 of 2016 2

¶30

on account of the proposed promotion of Smt.P.N.Shyni as HSA. It is the claim of the petitioner, that to the said consequential vacancy of UPSA, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as she was earlier duly appointed by the second respondent Manager to the post of HSA (English) after undergoing the due selection process in that regard. Pointing out her claims, the petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P-9 representation dated 30.6.2016 before the second respondent Manager claiming the said appointment in the school in the aforementioned consequent vacancy of UPSA, which arise as stated above. It is in the light of these aspects, that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition (civil) with the following prayers:-

¶31

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P-9 representation filed by the petitioner;

¶32

ii. To issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as U.P.S.A in the vacancy that has arisen on promotion of Smt.Shyni P.N. as H.S.A (English) ; and

¶33

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

¶34

Sri.K.R.Ganesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner

¶35

W.P.(C).No.23366 of 2016 3

¶36

submits that the petitioner would limit her prayer in this writ proceedings, by seeking a direction from this Court to ensure that the second respondent will take a considered decision on Ext.P-9 representation without much delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶37

Heard Sri.K.R.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for first respondent. In the light of the relief that is proposed to be granted in this writ petition, notice to R-2 Manager, is dispensed with.

¶38

Having regard to the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings of this writ petition and taking due note of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it is ordered that in case Ext.P-9 representation pending consideration before the 2nd respondent Manager, then the said Manager of the 2nd respondent school will take up the same for consideration without much delay and render a considered decision thereon, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without much delay at any rate,

¶39

W.P.(C).No.23366 of 2016

¶40

¶41

within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶42

With these observations and directions, this writ

¶43

petition (civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

PA TO JUDGE

¶48

avk

Meera K v. the District Educational Officer, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera K v. the District Educational Officer, Malappuram

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

Saji John Vs State of Kerala

S.Ramesan Vs K.S.E.B and Another

B.Sasidharan Vs Indian Rare Earths Ltd.

Dr. D.Narayana Vs State of Kerala

Sajan V.S Vs Fact

Muhammed Ashique C.S Vs State of Kerala