Dismissed

Joshitha K.S. v. Swapna R.

Kerala HC24 Jul 2017RP/632/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review petition filed by a non-party to a writ petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the review petitioner's right to promotion was not decided by the original judgment. The petitioner is free to file a fresh petition to challenge the approval granted to another employee.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed with liberty to the review petitioner to challenge the approval granted to the writ petitioner.

Joshitha K.S. Vs Swapna R. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 632 of 2015

¶6

-----------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 28386/2013 DATED 02-02-2015)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY:

¶8

JOSHITHA K.S., JOSH NIVAS, KARICHIYIL, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. SWAPNA R., H.S.A. LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL,

¶12

SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA-638 538

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶16

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶17

5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688 001

¶18

6. THE MANAGER,

¶19

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF LUTHERAN SCHOOLS, INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, CONCORDIA H.S., COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SYNOD, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶20

R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶21

R2 TO R5 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.GOPINATHAN

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

R.P.NO.632/2015

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 31/05/2007 ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27/12/2012 ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05/12/2013 ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DPI DATED 07/07/2014 ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS UPSA FROM 4/6/07 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 11/7/14. ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AEO APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT DATED 16/7/14. ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15/11/12 ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DPI DATED 01/01/2013.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

**********************************************************************

¶35

R.P.No.632 of 2015

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.28386 of 2013

¶38

********************************************************************** Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2017

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The review petitioner has approached this Court with leave

¶41

as she was not the party in the writ petition. Leave was granted. The dispute, which was resolved by this Court is regarding to the appointment of the writ petitioner as a 'High School Assistant' in an aided school. This Court allowed the writ petition directing the Department to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner. The issue that was considered by this Court was a temporary relinquishment of the claim for the promotion by one Smt.Girija. It is true, this Court also observed on the objection raised on behalf of the review petitioner by the authority. In the light of the fact, which was disclosed before this Court that the review petitioner's appointment as 'UPSA' was not approved by the authority, this Court also observed that the objection on that count also will not stand in the way of approval of the writ petitioner. The review petitioner now claims that she was entitled to be promoted as 'HSA', and the writ petitioner was promoted overlooking her claim.

¶42

R.P.No.632 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.28386 of 2013 2

¶43

It is further submitted that based on the orders of this Court, the Department approved appointment of the writ petitioner.

¶44

This Court had no occasion to decide upon the right of the review petitioner. Certainly, if the review petitioner is aggrieved by the approval granted to the writ petitioner, she is free to challenge it in an appropriate manner. Since the review petitioner's right was not decided by this Court, the approval given to the writ petitioner pursuant to the directions of this Court will not stand in the way of the review petitioner agitating her cause independently. Certainly,

¶45

the review petitioner is at liberty to challenge the approval granted to the writ petitioner.

¶46

With the liberty as above, this review petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶49

Joshitha K.S. v. Swapna R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshitha K.S. v. Swapna R.

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

Musthafa Vs the District Collector

C.Usman Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Siraj Khanna Vs the Sub Inspector of Police & Others

Nazar.S Vs University of Kerala

Sreemandara Varma Jain Vs B.S Tirumeni

Biju Jacob Vs Mr.Binu V.V.