Allowed

Haseena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016WP(C)/32337/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging orders denying full time benefits to a teacher. The Court held that the petitioner, appointed in a retirement vacancy, is entitled to full time benefits via group C diversion as her appointment was before the Government order withdrawal of the benefit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were set aside. The petitioner is declared entitled to full time benefit on group C diversion. Competent authorities to pass necessary monetary orders within two months.

Haseena 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

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 32337 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

HASEENA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, URDU LANGUAGE TEACHER, AMUP SCHOOL, KUTTITHARAMMAL, IRINGALLUR P.O, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM-676 304.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, VIDYABHYASA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶13

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM.

¶14

4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR.

¶15

5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM-676 304.

¶16

6. THE MANAGER, AMUP SCHOOL, KUTTITHARAMMAL, IRINGALLUR P.O, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM-676 304.

¶17

R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 32337 of 2014 (N)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 01/06/2010.

¶24

P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P2(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2.

¶26

P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/05/2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

P3(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3.

¶28

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/01/2013 ISSUSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE REVISION FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P4(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4.

¶30

P5: TRUE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 28/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-2011.

¶31

P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. K.DIS/B1/27027/09 DATED 23/07/2011.

¶32

P6(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P6.

¶33

P7: TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO. 220/2010/G.EDN DATED 04/11/2010.

¶34

P8: TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 13652/J2/11/G.EDN DATED 23/03/2011.

¶35

P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/06/2012.

¶36

P9(A): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P9.

¶37

P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/07/2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶38

P10(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P10.

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶44

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 32337 of 2014

¶45

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th October, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P1 to P6, P9 and P10. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed on 1.6.2010 in a retirement vacancy. She was entitled to full time benefits on the basis of diversion of periods from group 'C' posts. It is further contended that the petitioner's appointment was against a vacancy of Urdu Teacher and that full time benefit had been granted to the earlier incumbent. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the rejection of approval as a full time teacher cannot be sustained.

¶48

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

¶49

The reasons stated in the orders rejecting approval are that the provision for full time benefit of diversion of period from group 'C' posts was withdrawn by the Government on 4.11.2010. It is, therefore, stated that since there were only 12 periods for Urdu Teacher in the school in the academic year 2010-2011, the full time benefit cannot be granted by diversion of group 'C' posts. It is further contended that only a protected teacher could have been appointed in the retirement vacancy that arose in 2010-2011, since two additional posts had been

¶50

¶51

WP(C).32337/14

¶52

sanctioned in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The contention with regard to appointment of protected teachers cannot be sustained, since the post to which the petitioner was appointed was an existing post of Urdu Language Teacher.

¶53

The contention that the said vacancy could be filled up only by a protected teacher cannot hold good, since the newly sanctioned posts for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were not filled up by appointing the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in a retirement vacancy of a post which was in existence. Therefore, the said contention is not sustainable. Further, with regard to group 'C' diversion also, the Government order dated 4.11.2010 specifically provides that group 'C' diversion will be available for appointments made in the academic year 2010-2011 as well. The petitioner's appointment having been made on 1.6.2010, i.e., before the date of the Government order in question and in the academic year 20102011, it is clear from the reading of the Government order itself that such benefit is to be granted to the petitioner also.

¶54

In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to full time benefit on group 'C' diversion. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the competent authorities within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶55

¶56

WP(C).32337/14

¶57

judgment and all monetary benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner

¶58

within two months thereafter.

¶59

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶60

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶61

vgs27/10

Haseena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseena 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandakumar Vs Issac Varghese

K.Sahadevan Vs the State of Kerala

Dephina David Vs Stateof Kerala

Percy Joseph Desmond Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Soja Vs State of Kerala

K.Padmakumaran Nair Vs Kerala Film Development Corpn.& Another