Dismissed

G.Suma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Mar 2016WP(C)/2993/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding a teacher's service claim under Rule 51B of Kerala Education Rules, the court found the petitioner had lost her right due to failure to approach authorities or court before the 1999 appointment. Additionally, the petitioner did not amend the petition to challenge a rejection order from 2002. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as deemed devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; prayers against appointment not allowed; no costs awarded.

G.Suma 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/9TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2993 of 2005 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G. SUMA, SUNIL BHAVAN, THONNALLOOR, PANTHALAM P.O.,, (UPSA, P.M.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGARA,, THIRUVALLA).

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.P.RESHMA KABIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, SUPER CHECK CELL,

¶12

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA.

¶15

5. MANAGER, P.M.V. HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA.

¶16

6. PREETHI R.NAIR, U.P.S.A.

¶17

P.M.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA.

¶18

R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL R6 BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF R6 BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 2993 of 2005 (F)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.08.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶24

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.1997 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. 14637 OF 1997

¶25

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5/7005/97 DATED 17.11.1997 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶26

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7/PMV HS/97-98 DATED 27.01.1998 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶27

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 08.09.1999 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶28

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 12.11.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶29

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/859/02/HMS DATED 02/03 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶30

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/5849/02 DATED 3/03 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶31

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.2003

¶32

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 11.6.2003

¶33

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.6.2003 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶34

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2004

¶35

P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.5242/04/G.EDN DATED 8.12.2004 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶36

P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2005

¶37

P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.1084/05/G.EDN DATED 15.3.2005 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶38

...2

¶39

WP(C).No. 2993 of 2005 (F)

¶40

-2-

¶41

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

¶42

R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.6763/L2/05/G.EDN DATED 15.06.2006

¶43

R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.178/02/G.EDN DATED 28.06.2002

¶44

R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF LOCAL DELIVERY TAPAL BOOK

¶45

R6(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 3.6.1996 ISSUED BY MANAGER, PMVTTI HS LPS, THIRUVALLA

¶46

R6(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.1999 OM O.P. NO.20401/99

¶47

R6(C) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.9/2000/G.E. DATED 1.1.2000

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 2993 of 2005 (F)

¶53

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2016

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

The petitioner is a Rule 51 B claimant, which is not in dispute. The petitioner claims appointment to the

¶56

post in which the 6^th respondent was appointed on 03.09.1999.

¶57

The petitioner's husband, while working as an H.S.A. in the 4^th respondent school, expired while in service, on 14.07.1997. The petitioner is said to have made an application under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The petitioner was appointed in three spells of leave vacancies arising in the school and was regularly appointed as per Ext.P10 dated 11.06.2003 as a U.P.S.A.

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 2993/2005

¶59

-2-

¶60

The petitioner has two contentions in the above case. One, that she ought to have been accommodated in the vacancy which arose on 03.09.1999, wherein the 6^th respondent was appointed. The second contention is with respect to the second spell of leave vacancy between 25.07.2002 and 31.10.2002, which was not approved. Annexure R4(a) is the order of the Government which rejected such approval.

¶61

The petitioner was a Rule 51B claimant and contends that she ought to have been accommodated in the first vacancy arising. What assumes significance in the present case is that the petitioner, who had applied under Rule 51B, was not vigilant enough and the appointment of the 6^th respondent, in the year 1999, is challenged in the present writ petition of the year 2005.

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 2993/2005

¶63

-3-

¶64

She has not approached either the educational authority or this Court prior to her appointment or immediately afterwards seeking consideration of her application under Rule 51B.

¶65

In this context it is pertinent that, even according to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in three spells of leave vacancies arising in the school and in such circumstance it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the vacancies arising in the school and the persons appointed thereat. The petitioner contends that the 6^th respondent had been working in an earlier leave vacancy and hence, the petitioner was under the belief that she had been appointed and continued, even prior to the death of the petitioner's husband. That is not sufficient reason to upset the appointment made in the year 1999, by a writ petition filed in the year 2005.

¶66

W.P.(C) No. 2993/2005

¶67

-4-

¶68

The next contention is with respect to the

¶69

second spell of appointment rejected as per Ext.R4(a), i.e., between 25.07.2002 and 31.10.2002. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same by an amendment to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that the order was passed when the writ petition was pending. The order is seen to have been produced by the Government on 14.12.2011 and in such circumstance the petitioner ought to have challenged the order in the writ petition, by an amendment.

¶70

In such circumstance, none of the prayers can be allowed and the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No Costs.

¶71

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶72

jjj 29/3/16

G.Suma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Suma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Abdul Lathif Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Krishna Varma Raja Vs v.C.Kerala Varma Raja

State of Kerala Vs R.Rajapppan Pillai

Ditty Tom Vs Sachidanandan

Krishnan K.V Vs P.Marykutty

Ditty Tom P. Vs Assistant Educational Officer