Allowed

Hassan Shareef.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2017WP(C)/15522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam set aside an order cancelling a petitioner's teaching appointment and directing salary recovery. It held that since the petitioner's qualifications were later recognized, the impugned order was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Directions in Exhibit P5 order setting aside appointment approval and recovering financial loss are set aside; petitioner's appointment approved as directed by DPI.

Hassan Shareef.K Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 15522 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HASSAN SHAREEF.K., HSA(NS), M.M.E.T.HIGH SCHOOL, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM-676517

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE SRI.GEORGE RENOY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-676505

¶12

R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.S. ASHRAF

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sdr/-

¶15

WP(C).No. 15522 of 2016 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 13/6/12 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶19

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16/8/14 FROM THE DPI

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 3/1/15 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 20/2/15 IN WPC 5387/15

¶22

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT. 18/3/16

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).No.15522 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

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

¶33

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶34

i. call for the records relating to Ext.P5 ii. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P5. Iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner on regular scale with effect from 13.6.2012.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶36

the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the qualification of B.Sc in Biotechnology and B.Ed in Natural Science has been accepted as a qualification for appointment to the post of HSA Natural Science by G.O. (Ms) No.113/14/G.Edn. dated 19.6.2014. It is contended that going by the said Government Order, the petitioner was qualified for appointment as HSA Natural Science. In the above circumstances, it is contended that Exhibit P5 order to the extent it directs the cancellation of the approval of appointment of the petitioner and the recovery of financial loss on account of approval granted is illegal and

¶38

W.P.(C) No.15522 of 2016

¶39

¶40

unsustainable.

¶41

The learned Government Pleader would contend that the qualification for appointment of teaching post in an aided school is prescribed in Chapter XXXI of the KER. It is submitted that the provisions of Chapter XXXI as it stood as on the date of appointment of the petitioner ie., on 13.6.2012 did not include B.Sc in Biotechnology as a qualification. It is stated that the petitioner who did not have any of the qualifications as prescribed in Chapter XXXI of the KER as on 13.6.2012 could not have been appointed as HSA Natural Science. It is therefore contended that the petitioner's appointment was irregular and the direction to cancel the approval already granted and to recover the salary was well in order.

¶42

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been appointed as HSA Natural Science with effect from 13.6.2012. The petitioner's qualification was B.Sc in Biotechnology with B.Ed in Natural Science. The petitioner's appointment was approved on daily wages from 13.6.2012 to 31.3.2013 by the DPI. The petitioner had taken up the matter before the Government

¶43

W.P.(C) No.15522 of 2016 3

¶44

seeking approval on regular scale of pay from 13.6.2012 onwards. It is on the revision preferred by the petitioner that Exhibit P5 order has been passed, directing the cancellation of the appointment and recovery of the financial loss on account of the irregular approval. It is not in dispute that Government orders have been issued stating that the qualifications for appointment as HSA Natural Science will be modified including B.Sc in Biotechnology with B.Ed Natural Science also as qualification for appointment as HSA Natural Science. The DPI was directed to forward proposal for amendment of the KER, accordingly. Though the petitioner, who was a teacher appointed prior to the date of the Government order dated 19.6.2014, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's appointment had been approved on daily wages by the DPI with effect from the date of initial appointment ie., 13.6.2012.

¶45

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Government in a revision preferred by the petitioner, cancelling the approval already granted and directing the recovery of pay was not in order, especially in view of the fact that the qualification by

¶46

W.P.(C) No.15522 of 2016

¶47

¶48

the petitioner has since been recognized as a possessed qualification for appointment to the post of HSA Natural science.

¶49

In the above view of the matter, the directions contained in Exhibit P5 order setting aside the approval of the petitioner's appointment and the direction to recover the financial loss are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's appointment shall stand approved as directed by the DPI.

¶50

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶53

sab

Hassan Shareef.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hassan Shareef.K 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

Govindan Namboothiri Vs Government of Kerala

The Manager Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Emmanuel P.M. Vs State of Kerala

Saneeju M Salu Vs State of Kerala

H0YALD Wilson Vs Director, Kerala Forest Research Institi