Allowed

T.Timy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2016WP(C)/3383/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition by a former Hindi teacher who sought approval of his appointment. The court set aside government declarations rejecting his application due to a missing bond and directed the respondent to approve his appointment with effect from the original date and pay consequential benefits, relying on previous precedents.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's appointment as Junior Hindi Teacher was approved with effect from 14.06.2007, and the 4th respondent was directed to pass consequential orders and disburse benefits.

T.Timy 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

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/26TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3383 of 2013 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.TIMY, W/O.T.L.BENNY, AGED 35 YEARS, FORMERLY LOWER GRADE HINDI TEACHER, HIGH SCHOOL,THIRUVALAYANNUR,KALLUR-VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT(RESIDING AT B2-VRINDAVAN APARTMENTS,KUTTIMUKKU,R.V.PURAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680003.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680506.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER,

¶15

HIGH SCHOOL,THIRUVALAYANNUR,KALLUR-VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679562.

¶16

R1 -R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

SKG

¶19

WP(C).No. 3383 of 2013 (W)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

-----------------------

¶23

EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.6.2007.

¶24

EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/72/08/K.DIS.DATED

¶25

15.2.2008 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶26

EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1206/2009/G.EDN.DATED 21.03.2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶27

EXT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)20037/2009-Y OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 8.7.2010

¶28

EXT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.16637/2009 DATED 9.7.2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶29

EXT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-9511/10/D.DIS.DATED 23.11.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶30

EXT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-2452/11 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.7.2011

¶31

EXT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-1192/11 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.7.2011.

¶32

EXT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.07.2011

¶33

EXT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.24935/2011-N OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶34

EXT-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.4/2013/G.EDN. DATED 1.1.2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶35

EXT-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2006-2007 TO 2010-2011 DATED 23.11.2010

¶36

EXT-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.15219/2013-B DATED 8.02.2015

¶37

EXT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2013(2)KHC 173 (FB)DATED 25.03.2013

¶38

WP(C).No. 3383 of 2013 (W)

¶39

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶40

----------------------NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKG

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶45

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.3383 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

1.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher in the 5^th respondent's school with effect from 04.06.2007 by Exhibit P1 order. Approval was rejected by the 4^th respondent on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was on 14.06.2007 with retrospective effect from 04.06.2007, and that there was no established vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. It was stated that the ban imposed for appointment against additional post by Government Order dated 17.08.2005 was still in existence. Though the petitioner preferred a revision before the Government, the same was rejected.

¶48

2.By G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, the ban was lifted and appointments were directed to be approved on the Managers executing a bond agreeing to appoint protected teachers in arising vacancies. Similarly situated teachers had approached this Court and by Exhibits P4 and P5 judgments,

¶49

W.P.(C).No.3383/13

¶50

¶51

this Court had held that it had to be taken into account that the Manager had no objection in obeying the conditions incorporated in the Government Order as regards the reserving of future vacancies for the appointment of protected teachers. Pursuant to the said judgment, the appointment of other teachers in the school was approved by Exhibits P6, P7 and P8 orders. The petitioner thereafter again took up the matter before the Government. This Court directed the consideration of the representation preferred by the petitioner before the Government by Exhibit P10 judgment. By Exhibit P11 order dated 01.01.2013, the approval was again rejected by the Government stating that the Manager had not executed the bond as per G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue is covered by Exhibits P4 and P5 judgments, and the Manager should be deemed to have given the declaration as required by G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(C).No.3383/13

¶54

¶55

4.It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the reasons for non approval of the appointment of the petitioner was that there existed a ban on appointment at the relevant time. It is admitted that the ban was thereafter lifted. However, it is contended that the 5^th respondent Manager had not challenged the orders of the Government rejecting the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. It is also stated that the post of Junior Hindi Teacher was abolished due to the reduction of students in the school in the year 2008-2009.

¶56

5.Having considered the contentions advanced as well as the pleadings and the materials on record, I am of the opinion that in the light of Exhibits P4 and P5 judgments, as well as the consequential orders for approval of appointments of teachers of the same school by Exhibits P7 and P8, rejection of approval of appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the Manager had not submitted the declaration as required by Government Order dated 12.01.2010 is unsustainable. Exhibits P2, P3 and P11 orders are, therefore, set aside. It is

¶57

W.P.(C).No.3383/13

¶58

¶59

declared that the petitioner's appointment as Junior Hindi Teacher is liable to be approved with effect from 14.06.2007, deeming that the 5^th respondent has submitted the declaration as provided in G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. The 4^th respondent is directed to pass consequential orders approving the appointment of the petitioner from 14.06.2007 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The consequential benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.

¶60

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶61

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶62

sj18/11

T.Timy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Timy 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

P.B.Ambujakshy Vs N.S.Sudharoopan.

N.P.George Vs State of Kerala

N.P.George Vs State of Kerala

Baby Girija P Vs State of Kerala and Others

O.Anthony and 10 Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Dr.S.Kumar Vs State of Kerala