Allowed

Dephina David v. Stateof Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016WP(C)/7071/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition by a Junior Hindi Teacher seeking approval of her appointment from 1.6.2009, which was delayed due to issues with the Corporate Manager's certification. The Court held that management disputes or delays in managerial appointments cannot justify denying teacher appointments in sanctioned posts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders P9 and P10 set aside; appointment as Junior Hindi Teacher approved with effect from 1.6.2009; consequential benefits to be released within three months.

Dephina David Vs Stateof Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7071 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DELPHINA DAVID, AGED 35 YEARS, WIFE OF BINJU FRANCIS, JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER, P.S.HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUMUDIKUNNU, KORATTY EAST-680308, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 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, THRISSUR AT AYYANTHOLE-680003.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680121.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, P.S.HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUMUDIKUNNU, KORATTY EAST-680308, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 7071 of 2013 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIO -------	NER(S)' -------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT	P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1-6-2009.
EXHIBIT	P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE EDUCATIONAL OFFIC	PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT ER DATED 27-2-2010.
EXHIBIT	P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE 14-6-2010 OF THE	ORDER NO. B2/6204/10/K.DIS DATED DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT	P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE C DATED 28-2-2011	JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 6227 OF 2011- .
EXHIBIT	P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE ON 20-4-2011.	NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 2ND RESPON	ORDER NO. EC(5)/20919/11/DPI/K.DIS DENT DATED 9-5-2011.
EXHIBIT	P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE 30-5-2006 OF THE	G.O.(RT)NO. 2198/06/G.EDN. DATED GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED	REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 25-5-2011.
EXHIBIT	P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE 29-12-2011 OF THE	G.O.(RT)NO. 5847/2011/G.EDN DATED GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P10-	TRUE COPY OF THE 26-9-2012 OF THE	G.O.(RT)NO. 4568/2012/G.EDN DATED GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P11-	TRUE COPY OF THE MATHEW DATED 1-1-	APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT. SHIJI 2008.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

¶22

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶23

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.7071 of 2013

¶24

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st October, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Hindi Teacher with effect from 1.6.2009. It is submitted that the appointment was against a retirement vacancy. Approval for the petitioner's appointment was rejected by the District Educational Officer on the ground that the approval of appointment of the Corporate Manager was rejected. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal, which was rejected by Exhibit P3 order on the contention that the appointment of the Corporate Manger has not been approved and therefore, the petitioner's appointment also cannot be approved. Though the petitioner had taken up the matter before the Director of Public Instruction, by Exhibit P6 order, the said revision was also rejected stating that the Corporate Manager's appointment had not been approved by the Department. The petitioner relies on Government orders stating that the management disputes and delay in approval of appointment of the Managers shall not affect the claim for approval of appointment of teachers. However, by Exhibit P9, though the contentions of the petitioner with regard to claim for approval were accepted, the Government directed approval with effect from the

¶27

WP(C).7071/13 2

¶28

academic year 2010-2011 onwards only. Though a review was attempted against Exhibit P9, the same also was dismissed.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶30

It is submitted by leaned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer only with effect from 1.6.2011. It is further submitted that going by the Government orders in force, the petitioner's appointment with effect from 1.6.2009 is clearly liable to be approved and she was also entitled to all benefits, monetary and otherwise. The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent Manager supports the petitioner. It is submitted that the appointment of the Manager had later been approved also.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader, with the support of the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, would submit that the reason for the delay in approving the appointment of the petitioner is that the Manger had committed default in submitting required documents for his approval as corporate Manager as contemplated in the Kerala Education Rules within the stipulated time. It is, therefore, contended that since the delay in approval of the appointment of the Manager is the reason for the delay in approval of the appointment of

¶32

¶33

WP(C).7071/13

¶34

the petitioner, salary, if any, for the period from 1.6.2009 to 1.6.2011 is to be directed to be recovered from the Manager.

¶35

I have considered the arguments advanced on either side. It is the settled position that if appointments of teachers are made in clear sanctioned posts and regular vacancies, approval of such appointments cannot be denied on the ground that there is a dispute with regard to the appointment of the Manager. This position is covered by Government orders also. In the instant case, what is pleaded by respondents 1 to 4 is not even as to the existence of a management dispute. It is the case of the 4^th respondent District Educational Officer that the appointment of the Corporate Manager had not been approved due to lapse on the part of the Manger to produce certain documents. In view of the Government orders in force, I am of the opinion that such a ground cannot be raised by the District Educational Officer for rejection of approval to the petitioner's appointment. There is no case that the petitioner's appointment was not in order. It is also contended that the appointment of the Manager has later been approved. In the above circumstances, there exists no valid ground on which the petitioner's approval as Junior Hindi Teacher with effect from 1.6.2009 could have been delayed as has been done in the instant case.

¶36

¶37

WP(C).7071/13

¶38

In the result, the impugned orders, Exhibits P9 and P10 are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's appointment as Junior Hindi Teacher with effect from 1.6.2009 shall be approved forthwith and the consequential benefits shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶40

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶41

vgs22/10

Dephina David v. Stateof Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dephina David v. Stateof 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

O.K.Sivaraman Vs the State of Kerala and Others

S.Appukuttan Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Sasidharan Sachu Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumar Vs Issac Varghese

K.Sahadevan Vs the State of Kerala

Fr. Varghese Koothoor Vs District Education Officer, Chavakkad