Dismissed

B.v.Chandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/35400/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, working as lab assistants and menials in aided schools, approached the High Court challenging the Government's order refusing to sanction librarian posts, labeling it a policy matter. The Court observed that the matter was part of broader controversy in other connected writ petitions and disposed of this petition while preserving liberty to prosecute the others.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to prosecute related writ petitions; no order as to costs.

B.v.Chandran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 35400 of 2008 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. B.V.CHANDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS,

¶8

LAB ASSISTANT, SNV HSS, NEDUNGANDA, TRIVANDRUM, GEETHA NIVAS, VADASSERIKKONAM P.O. TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

2. P.S.SAJIMON, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.N.K.SUKUMARAN,

¶10

FULL TIME MENIAL, SNDP HSS KILIROOR, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BENOY THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

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

¶14

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

3. THE MANAGER, SNV HSS NEDUNGANDA, TRIVANDRUM- 695 020.

¶16

4. THE MANAGER, SNDP HSS KILIROOR, KOTTAYAM- 686 005.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.PRASAD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 35400 of 2008 (L)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LIBRARY SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LIBRARY SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 6112 OF 2006 DATED 28.03.2007.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 35981 OF 2007 DATED 07.12.2007.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IE. GO(RT)NO. 1026/09 EDN DATED 26.02.2008.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE DATED 28.06.2012.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶37

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35400 of 2008

¶38

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioners are working as Lab Assistants and Full Time Menial in two Aided Higher Secondary Schools. They have been approved in service as per Exts.P1 and P2.

¶41

The petitioners' grievance is that their appointment and transfer to the post of Librarian Grade IV against the 25% quota set apart for the qualified employees under the management are not being done by the Managers due to non-sanctioning of posts of Librarian Grade IV by the competent authority under Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII of the KER.

¶42

The petitioners had represented to the competent authorities as well as the Government, which finally ended up in Ext.P5 order being issued by the Government. In Ext.P5, the Government have said that creation of the posts of Librarians in Higher Secondary Schools is a policy matter. It is also stated that the same is under the active consideration of the Government; it says nothing more. The petitioners are aggrieved

¶43

W.P.(C)No.35400/08

¶44

:-2-:

¶45

by Ext.P5 and are impugning the same asserting that the Government ought to have sanctioned the posts and ought not to merely delay the process saying that it is a policy matter.

¶46

Ext.P5 to the extent it maintains that, sanctioning of the posts is a policy matter, appears to be quite true. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with policy matters would be extremely limited. However, it is brought to my notice at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Paulson Thomas, that the Government has subsequently passed another order namely, G.O.(MS)220/2015 dated 17.8.2015, wherein according to the petitioner, the Government has accepted the sanctioning of the posts in principle, but has not created the posts and has deferred it to future. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, that Government Order has been challenged vide W.P.(C)Nos.30047 of 2015 and 5599 of 2015 at the hands of the petitioners herein and others.

¶47

In such circumstances, I deem it apposite that I do not go into the matters of controversy in its merits at all and I deem it appropriate that these matters are also considered at the time when the other two writ petitions filed by the petitioners and

¶48

W.P.(C)No.35400/08

¶49

:-3-:

¶50

others mentioned above are considered, since the issue that has been raised in this writ petition would obviously be considered by the Court while disposing of the above mentioned writ petitions. This writ petition is therefore disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to prosecute the above mentioned writ petitions, without in any manner being constrained by Ext.P5 order.

¶51

In the nature of circumstances and facts of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶56

ami/10.11.16

¶57

//True copy//

¶58

P.A.to Judge

B.v.Chandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Chandran 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

G.P.Augustine Vs State

P.Vijayakumar Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Cochin Cadalas Private Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer

Sophia A.S Vs Union of India

Jabir V.S. Vs the Deputy General Manager (Hr)

V.Balaraman Pillai Vs State of Kerala