Partly allowed

G.Smija v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2016WP(C)/2546/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an H.S.A (Malayalam) appointment. It held that rejecting an appointment merely because protected teachers existed in the district, without a specific list forwarded to the school, is unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed and the appointment was directed to be approved.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejected; petitioner appointed as H.S.A (Malayalam) from 07.06.2004; monetary benefit calculated and disbursed.

G.Smija Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2546 of 2015 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.SMIJA,

¶8

(H.S.A (MALAYALAM), ST. SEBASTIAN'S HIGH SCHOOL, MARUTHAROAD, PALAKKAD-678007.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD, PIN:678 001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, PIN:678 001.

¶14

4. THE MANAGER

¶15

ST.SEBASTIAN'S HIGH SCHOOL, MARUTHAROAD, PALAKKAD-678007.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 2546 of 2015 (P)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 1.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 28.6.2002.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 18.2.2006.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 1.2.2006.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 24.8.2006.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OT THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.5.05 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.9.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DPI, TRIVANDURM.

¶32

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9.7.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DPI, TRIVANDRUM.

¶33

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE DPI, TRIVANDRUM TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 19.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDNET TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2011 IN WPC NO.24919/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶40

NIL

¶41

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶42

¶43

ANU SIVARAMAN, J

¶44

W.P.(C) No.2546 of 2015

¶45

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The challenge in this writ petition is against the

¶48

orders rejecting the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A (Malayalam) with effect from 07.06.2004. The petitioner contends that pursuant to Ext.P1 staff fixation order, the petitioner was appointed by Ext.P2 as H.S.A (Malayalam) in an available regular vacancy. By Ext.P7 order, the DEO rejected the approval on the ground that the vacancy should have been filled up by appointing protected hands. Exts.P8, P9, P14 and P15 are orders of Government upheld this stand taken by the DEO.

¶49

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

¶50

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the petitioner was appointed in a newly opened school and no protected teacher has been appointed in

¶51

W.P.(C) No.2546 of 2015

¶52

¶53

the school. Protected teachers deployed in Government schools were availed in the revenue district at the time of the appointment of the petitioner. This is the only reason stated for declining approval to the petitioner's appointment.

¶54

I have considered the contentions raised. The issue

¶55

raised is covered in favour of the petitioner by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v.Nadeera [2013 (2) KLT 88] . The counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent does not contain any contention to the effect that a list had been prepared by the Deputy Director of Education showing the names of the protected teachers available in the revenue district and

¶56

that the same had been forwarded to the Manager before the date of appointment of the petitioner.

¶57

In the above view of the matter , the rejection of the

¶58

approval of the petitioner's appointment on the ground that there were protected hands in the revenue district cannot be countenanced. The impugned orders are therefore set aside. It

¶59

is directed that the 3^rd respondent shall pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A(Malayalam) with effect

¶60

W.P.(C) No.2546 of 2015

¶61

¶62

from 07.06.2004 within a period of two months from the date of

¶63

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monetary benefit due to

¶64

the petitioner shall be calculated and disbursed to her within a period of two months thereafter.

¶65

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶68

G.Smija v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Smija 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Suresh Kumar Vs Cochin Port Trust

P.R.Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala

T.a.Prabhavathy Vs the State of Kerala

The Director of Health Services Thiruvananthapuram Vs P.P. Mathai Kunju

K.C.Raveendran Vs Union of India

Pooja Nair Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.