Allowed

Liju K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2016WP(C)/26838/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking approval of teachers' appointments in an aided school. The Court quashed the order denying promotion, ruling that the school's pre-upgraded section is exempt from protected teacher mandates and statutory claims for promotion cannot be overridden by executive orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order rejecting appointments. Directed the respondent to approve the first petitioner's promotion as HSA and the second petitioner's appointment as UPSA from 1.6.2010 and disburse conseque

Liju K. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 26838 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. LIJI.K., H.S.A.(MALAYALAM), THEKKUMMURI HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHENCHIRA, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 121.

¶8

2. ABHILASH ANTONY THERATTIL, UPSA, THEKKUMMURI HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHENCHIRA, IRINJALAKUDA-680 121, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA-680 121.

¶14

3. THE MANAGER, THEKKUMMURI HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHENCHIRA, IRINJALAKUDA-680 121, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SAVAD.A R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-08-2016, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 29001 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 26838 of 2012 (D)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2009 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT DATED 01.06.2010 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2010 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B2-4694/2010/L.DIS. DATED 08.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2012 IN W.P(C).NO. 15755/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO. 4451/2012/G.EDN. DATED 22.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.05.2012.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.05.2012.

¶29

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER'S FATHER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 19.09.2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B2-6902/2012/K.DIS. DATED 28.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO. 73/2006/G.EDN DATED 18.02.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 27/12/2006/G.EDN. DATED 26.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS.) 123/91/G.EDN. DATED 05.08.1991 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO. 347/98/G.EDN. DATED 01.09.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (RELEVANT PAGES).

¶35

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶36

WP(C).No. 26838 of 2012 (D)

¶37

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012

¶45

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

W.P.(C).No.26838 of 2012

¶48

The case projected in the aforecaptioned writ petition (civil) is as follows:-

¶49

The Upper Primary (UP) section of the 3^rd respondent Thekkumuri Aided High School, Puthenchira, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District was established in the year 1952 and as the said U.P section of that School was one which was established long prior to 1979, the said U.P.section of the school will not come within the sweep and ambit of Rule 6 of Chapter V KER. It is pointed out that originally the school was originally an Upper Primary School and later, the said Upper Primary School was upgraded as a High School after the year 1979 and accordingly it is pointed out that it is the High School Section alone which had come into existence after 1979 and that the U.P.Section had come into existence long prior to 1979 as it was started as early as in the year 1952. It is pointed out that the 1^st respondent State Government had earlier issued Ext.P-11 order G.O.(P) No.73/2006/G.Edn dated 18.2.2006 directing that only that section of the school which started functioning after the year

¶50

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 2

¶51

1979, which alone would come within the definition of the new school as envisaged under Rule 6 Chapter V KER and that in the case of pre-upgraded section of such a new school, the same will not be bound by the stipulation regarding appointment of protected hands as envisaged in Rule 6 Chapter V KER. The stipulations in Ext.P-11 Government Order dated 18.2.2006 was again reiterated by the Government as per Ext.P-12 Government Circular No.27/J2/2006/G.Edn dated 26.5.2006. Accordingly, it is contended by the petitioner that in the light of Ext.P-11 G.O. dated 18.2.2006 and P-12 Government Circular dated 26.5.2006, the vacancies arising in the U.P. section of the 3^rd respondent Aided High School, is not liable to be filled up by a protected hand and that the said U.P section will stand totally outside the purview of Rule 6 Chapter V KER. The first petitioner’s appointment as UPSA (Upper Primary School Assistant) in the U.P section of the 3^rd respondent High School was duly approved by the Educational Authority concerned, w.e.f 1.6.2009 as per Ext.P1 and therefore it is contended that she becomes a statutory claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER who is entitled to be promoted as H.S.A (Malayalam) in a vacancy which has arisen subsequent to 1.6.2009. It is also pointed out that the

¶52

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 3

¶53

Government has also ordered that as per Ext.P-13 G.O.(Ms.) No.123/91/G.Edn dated 5.8.1991 that if there is a statutory claimant under Rule 43 or under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER, who is eligible to be appointed, then the obligation to appoint a protected teacher can be overlooked. This was again reiterated by the Government as per Ext.P-14 G.O.(Ms.)No.347/98/G.Edn dated 1.9.1998.

¶54

It is stated that when a vacancy of H.S.A (Malayalam) has arisen in the 3^rd respondent Aided High School on 5.2.2009, the 1^st petitioner who was entitled to be so appointed by promotion under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER, was so appointed by the 3^rd respondent Manager as per Ext.P-2 appointment order dated 1.6.2010. In the consequential vacancy of UPSA, which was created by the promotion of petitioner as HSA as per Ext.P-2, the 3^rd respondent Manager had appointed the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA in that vacancy as covered by Ext.P-3 appointment order. Ext.P-3 appointment order of the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA was declined to be approved by the 3^rd respondent DEO on the ground that the 3^rd respondent Manager had chosen not to appoint a protected

¶55

teacher in the vacancy of HSA to which the petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P-1. Consequently, the approval of the

¶56

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 4 promotion of the 1^st petitioner as HSA as per Ext.P-2, also stood declined by the Educational Authorities concerned. The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s case is that the U.P section of the school stands totally outside the purview of Rule 6 Chapter V KER and that the 1^st petitioner who was a UPSA in that school as a statutory right to be promoted to the post of HSA by the mandate of Rule 43 Chapter XIV A KER, as she was the senior most UPSA, having all the prescribed qualifications for holding the post of HSA and that the statutory obligation to secure promotion on the basis of Rule 43 cannot in any manner be bittled down by executive prescriptions regarding appointment of protected teachers and at any rate, the Government was clarified as per Ext-11 that in schools like the 3^rd respondent, where the U.P section was established prior to 1979, and the High School section is established in 1979 or thereafter,then, the U.P section cannot be subjected to Rule 6 of Chapter V KER, etc.

¶57

Later, during the pendency of this writ petition, the

¶58

Government had issued Ext.P-15 letter dated 26.8.2014, directing that those teachers who are continuing in schools without approval should be retrenched. It is pointed out by the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent that the direction in Ext.P-15

¶59

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 5

¶60

was not enforced as against the petitioners herein and they are allowed to continue in service. It is also pointed out that the 2^nd respondent DEO had approved the appointment of the 1^st petitioner as HSA (Malayalam) with effect from 2.6.2014 in the revised scale of Rs.29,200-62,400/- as per the endorsement dated 11.7.2016 made in Ext.P-16 and the approval is so granted w.e.f 2.6.2014,etc. The prayers in the writ petition are as

¶61

follows:-

¶62

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P-10 and quash the same to the extent it decline/remand approval of appointment of the 1^st petitioner as H.S.A (Malayalam) on the basis of Ext.P-2 order w.e.f.1.6.2010 and to the extent it remands the issue of approval of appointment of the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA w.e.f. 1.6.2010; and quash the same.

¶63

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leadng to Ext.P-10 and quash the same to the extent it rejects the approval of appointment of the 1^st petitioner as H.S.A (Malayalam) w.e.f. 1.6.2010 on the basis of Ext.P-2 order and the to the extent it rejects the approval of appointment of the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA w.e.f 1.6.2010 on the basis of Ext.P-3 order; and quash the same.

¶64

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the 1^st petitioner as H.S.A (Malayalam) w.e.f 1.6.2010 on the basis of Ext.P-2 order and grant her all consequential benefits and also the approve the appointment of the 2^nd petitionber as UPSA w.e.f 1.6.2010 and disburse to him all consequential benefits;

¶65

iv. Declare that the appointment of the 1^st petitioner

¶66

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012

¶67

¶68

as H.S.A (Malayalam) w.e.f 1.6.2010 made as per Ext.P-2 order is liable to be approved and the appointment of the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA made on the basis of Ext.P-3 order w.e.f 1.6.2010 is liable to be approved with all consequential benefits;

¶69

v. Issue such other and futher reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

¶70

vi. Award costs to the petitioner.”

¶71

Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan appearing for the 3^rd respondent Manager.

¶72

The facts are not in dispute in as much as, it is clear that the Upper Primary (UP) section of the 3^rd respondent Thekkumuri Aided High School, Puthenchira was established in the year 1952 and the U.P school was upgraded as a High School only after 1979. As per Ext.P-11, Government Order dated 18.2.2006, the Government has clearly said that it is only that section of the school which had started functioning after 1979 which would fall within the definition of the new school as envisaged under Rule 6 Chapter V KER and that in the case of the pre-upgraded section of such a new school, will not be bound by the stipulation regarding the appointment of protected hands. It

¶73

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 7

¶74

has again been reinforced by the Government as per Ext.P-12 Government circular dated 26.5.2006. It is also not in dispute that the 1^st petitioner’s appointment as UPSA as per Ext.P-1 dated 1.6.2009 was duly approved by the 2^nd respondent DEO for the period from 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010. The claim of the 1^st petitioner is that she was the senior most UPSA at the time of occurrence of vacancy of HSA having all the prescribed qualifications for holding the higher category post of HSA,etc. When the vacancy of HSA (Malayalam) had arisen in the 3^rd respondent school, the Manager had duly appointed the 1^st petitioner as HSA to honour her statutory claim for promotion under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER. There is no case for the official respondents that there was any UPSA in the said school who was senior to the petitioner and who had a better claim for such promotion,etc. There is no case for official respondents that the 1^st petitioner did not have any prescribed qualifications for promotion to the post of HSA. In the vacancy of UPSA which was created in consequence to the promotion of the 1^st petitioner as HSA, the 2^nd petitioner was so appointed as UPSA as per Ext.P-3. So there is no legal obligation for the 3^rd respondent Manager to fill up a vacancy which is to be filled up for honouring a statutory

¶75

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 8

¶76

claim either under Rule 43 or Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A KER by appointing a protected teacher and as the said statutory obligation cannot be superseded by the executive prescriptions requiring appointment of protected teachers.

¶77

It can be seen from a perusal of Ext.P-1 that though the 3^rd respondent Manager had pointed the 1^st petitioner originally as UPSA, for the period from 1.6.2009 to 20.10.2013 in a five year leave without allowance vacancy having duration from 21.10.2008 to 20.10.2013, the 3^rd respondent DEO had chosen to grant approval of the said appointment of the 1^st petitioner as UPSA as per Ext.P-1 only for the period from 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010 in view of G.O.(P).No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.6.2008. The technical ground cited in the impugned Ext.P-4, for rejecting the approval for the present appointment of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner's approval for appointment as UPSA was limited only for the period upto 31.3.2010 as per Ext.P-1 and that she was not a UPSA in the rolls of the school from 1.4.2010 and there is no established vacancy to accomodate the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA. It is pointed out that the provision contained in G.O.(P).No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.6.2008 was already set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the

¶78

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 9

¶79

case Unninarayanan V. State of Kerala (W.P.(C).Nos.25176 of 2008 and connected cases, judgment dated 6.4.2009) reported in 2009 (2) KLT 604. The Division Bench therein held

¶80

that the executive prescription in the impugned G.O.(P) No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.6.2008 is contrary to the statutory mandate contained in Rule 7 A of Chapter XIV A KER. That apart, as per the amendment to Rule 51 A made effective as per G.O.(P)No.187/2005/G.Edn dated 17.6.2005 published in Kerala Gazette dated 25.6.2005, Rule 51 A claim will relate to appointments to future vacancies not only in the same category as the one held by the claimant but even to higher or lower categories of teaching post for which he/she is qualified, that may arise. As there was no other UPSA claimant in the 3^rd respondent school who sought promotion in the vacancy of HSA that had arisen on 1.6.2010, there was no legal impediment to grant approval of appointment to the 1^st petitioner with effect from 1.6.2010. Though the 2^nd respondent DEO has raised the technical ground as against 1^st petitioner regarding the limitation of the approval of appointment of the 1^st petitioner as UPSA upto 31.3.2010, the fact remains the G.O.(P).No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.6.2008 on the basis of

¶81

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 10

¶82

which such limitation was made has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Unninarayanan's case (supra) and even if there were technical hurdles in that regard, as the 1^st petitioner has all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of HSA, she could even resort to the claim under Rule 51 A KER for securing appointment to a higher category of HSA on the basis of her prior approved service as UPSA as even the impugned approval referred to Ext.P-1 was for one full academic year. Therefore, there was no legal impediments whatsover, in granting approval to the appointment of the 1^st petitioner as HSA with effect from 1.6.2010 and consequently as there was no other claimant to the post of UPSA which was held by the 1^st petitioner, the appointment made by the 3^rd respondent Manager in favour of the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA, is also liable to be approved by the Educational Authorities concerned. Still further it is to be noted, that both the petitioners had approched the 1^st respondent Government by instituting statutory revision petitions under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A on the issue of their non-approval of their appointment as HSA as UPSA respectively and this Court as per Ext.P-5 judgment had directed the Government to take an appropriate decision on that revision. It is

¶83

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 11

¶84

by now, too well established that the statutory obligation to make appointment going by the statutory mandate of Rule 43 or Rule 51 A Chapter XIV A KER cannot be whittled down or restricted by virtue of the prescription for appointment of protected teachers made by executive orders. The Government as per Ext.P-6 revisional order dated 22.9.2012 had ordered therein that the order of the DEO in limiting the 1^st petitioner upto 31.3.2010 as per the endorsement dated 4.8.2010 made in Ext.P-1 herein is set aside and the DEO, Irinjalakuda was directed to approve the appointment of the 1^st petitioner herein as UPSA till 20.10.2013 in the leave vacancy of the incumbent concerned and to examine the eligibility of the 1^st petitioner herein for approval of promotion as HSA from 1.6.2010 against the above background and take appropriate decision. It was further directed by the Government in Ext.P-6 revisional order that the issue of the approval of the 2^nd petitioner herein as UPSA in the vacancy previously held by the petitioner will automatically be resolved when a decision is taken by the DEO in the case of the 1^st petitioner. Accordingly, the Government in Ext.P-6 had directed the DEO to take a decision as directed above on the issue before 30.9.2010. It is thereafter, in compliance of the said direction,

¶85

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 12

¶86

the 3^rd respondent DEO as per the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings dated 28.9.2012 held as follows in paras 4 and 5 thereof:-

¶87

“4. Thekkumuri High School, Puthenchira is an upgraded school after 1979. As per G.O.(P).No.No.46/06/G.Edn dated 1.2.2006, the arising vacancies should be filled up by a protected hand in the upgraded porting of the schools. But the Manager, THS Puthenchira has not observed the guidlines in the above Government Order w.e.f 4.7.2009. Hence the appointment of Smt.Liji K, UPSA as HSA (Malayalam) from 1.6.2010 to 30.6.2014 in the LWA vacancy from 5.2.2009 to 30.6.2014 of Sri.K.M.Shomi, HSA (Malayalam) of this school is against rules and cannot be considered for approval.

¶88

In the above circumstances, there is no established vacancy to accomodate Sri.Abhilash Antony Therattil as UPSA w.e.f. 1.6.2010. Hence, the appointment of Sri.Abhilash Antony Therattil as UPSA from 1.6.2010 to 20.10.2013 in the promotion vacancy of Smt.K Liji, UPSA as HSA (Malayalam) from 1.6.2010 to 30.6.2014 deserves no consolidation for approval. The Government order read first paper above is thus complied with.”

¶89

The ground stated in para 4 of Ext.P-10 is totally untenable as it has been made clear by Government as per Ext.P-11 and P-12 that only that section of the Aided School which was started functioning after 1979 which would come in the sweep of new school as envisaged in Rule 6 Chapter V and that in the case of upgraded section of such a new school, the same will not be bound by the stipulation regarding the appointment of the protected hands. Therfore, the said reasoning made in Ext.P-10 for rejecting the approval of the appointment of the 1^st petitioner as HSA from 1.6.2010 is plainly untenable and

¶90

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 13

¶91

unsustainable. The ground stated in para 6 of Ext.P-10 for rejecting the approval of the appointment of the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA is that as the appointment of the 1^st petitioner cannot be approved, there is no corresponding established vacancy to accomodate the 2^nd petitioner as UPSA with effect from 1.6.2010. In this view of the matter the grounds stated in Ext.P-10 so as to justify the rejection of the approval of the appointment of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners herein as HSA and UPSA are unsustainable and are liable to be interdicted by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings under Ext.P-10 will stand quashed. The 2^nd respondent DEO, Irinjalakkuda will immediately take steps to ensure that the approval of the appointment of the 1^st petitioner as HSA(Malayalam) in the 3^rd respondent school, is approved with effect from 1.6.2010 and correpondingly the 3^rd respondent should also issue appropriate proceedings so as to grant approval of appointment to the second petitioner as UPSA with effect from 1.6.2010. As the 1^st petitioner has already secured approval, as HSA with effect from 2.6.2014, as per the 3^rd respondent's endorsement dated 11.6.2006 as per Ext.P-16 , that aspect may also be duly taken note of by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent will ensure that all consequential benefits flowing

¶92

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 14

¶93

therefrom in the matter of pay and allowances and arrears thereon should be disbursed to both the petitioners from 1.6.2010 onwards within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. This Court has not dealt with the issue as to whether the 1^st petitioner is entitled for pay and allowances as UPSA for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.5.2010 and the 1^st petitioner will be at liberty to approach the competent authority among the respondents for ventilating any grievances in that regard. Appropriate action shall be taken by the said competent authority concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation submitted by the 1^st petitioner in that regard. With these observations and directions, this writ petition (civil) stands finally disposed of. W.P.(C).No.29001 of 2012

¶94

The matter involved in this case is similar and identical to the one raised in the W.P.(C).No.26838 of 2012 in which judgment has been rendered by this Court today. The 3^rd respondent Manager in W.P.(C).26838 of 2012 is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.29001 of 2012 and the prayers in W.P.(C).No.29001 of 2012 is on the issues of approval of appointment of the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 as HSA and

¶95

W.P.(C).Nos.26838 & 29001 of 2012 15

¶96

UPSA respectively for the period from 1.6.2010 onwards. Accordingly, it is ordered that the orders and directions issued in W.P.(C).No.26838 of 2012 will govern the present writ petition

¶97

also.

¶98

With these observations and directions, the above writ

¶99

petition (civil) also stands finally disposed of.

¶100

Sd/-

¶101

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶102

//TRUE COPY//

¶103

PA TO JUDGE

¶104

avk

Liju K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liju K. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Shajikumar Vs State of Kerala

Jaison Peter Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Paul P.R. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Vishnu v. Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Vidhu.G. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Prasannakumari. M.N Vs State of Kerala