Quashed

Sheeba Beevi S & Another v. State of Kerala, & Others

Kerala HC1 Feb 2017WP(C)/20706/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside a Government order directing the appointment of a respondent as High School Assistant. The Court held that the order was passed without notice to the petitioners and without hearing them, violating principles of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P6 Government order is set aside. Government directed to dispose of the revision after hearing all parties within three months.

Sheeba Beevi S & Another Vs State of Kerala, & Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20706 of 2009 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SHEEBA BEEVI S., H.S.A. (SOCIAL SCIENCE)

¶8

MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHEENA NAS J., H.S.A.(SOCIAL SCIENCE), MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

5. THE MANAGER, MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND MUSLIM BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

6. SATHYAKUMARI P.S., MUSLIM TEACHER, MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 20706 of 2009 (G)

¶20

*** Addl. 7.SHUHIBE K HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ARABIC), MUSLIM BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 301.(IMPLEADED)**

¶21

*** Addl. 8. NISHA S. NAIR, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SANSKRIT), MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 301.(IMPLEADED)**

¶22

**** Addl. 9. V.S.INDU,**

¶23

UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR BOYS, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED)

¶24

*** aDDL.R7 & ADDL.R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.04.2011 IN IA.6506/2011**

¶25

**** aDDL. R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.04.2012 IN IA.5558/2012**

¶26

R1-4 BY ADV.SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU ADDL.R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.R.SRINATH R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON ADDL.R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD ADDL.R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.MOHANDAS R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R5 BY ADV. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS ADDL.R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP ADDL.R7-8 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 8683/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No. 20706 of 2009 (G)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

------- P1	---------------- TRUE COPY OF APPOINT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 10.07.2008
P2	TRUE COPY OF APPOINT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2008
P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/5587/08 DATED 24.01.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPROVAL OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/5342/08 DATED 24.01.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPROVAL OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 18.06.2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA.327/2008
P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.2380/09/GEDN. DATED 15.06.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.08.2008

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶39

W.P(C).Nos. 20706 of 2009 & W.P(C).No.8683 of 2011

¶40

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st February, 2017

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The issue raised in these writ petitions is with regard to appointment of High School Assistant in an aided school. The petitioners in W.P(C).No.20706 of 2009 challenge Exhibit P6 order issued by the Government holding that the 6^th respondent was entitled to appointment as HSA (Social Science) and directing the Manager to appoint 6^th respondent in the first vacancy that arose after she acquired qualification for the post. Exhibit P6 further directs the District Educational Officer not to approve any appointment made by the Manager till the above direction is complied with. Exhibits P3 and P4 orders rejecting the approval of the petitioners' appointment as HSA (Social Science) are also under challenge. W.P(C).No.8683 of 2011 is filed challenging Exhibit P8 Government order (Exhibit P6 in W.P(C).No.20706 of 2009) as also Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 orders, rejecting the approval of appointment of the petitioners as HSA (Physical Science) and HSA (Mathematics).

¶43

WP(C).20706/09 & WP(C).8683/11 2

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent.

¶45

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C).No.20706 of 2009 that none of the persons likely to be affected by Exhibit P6 order were heard before the order directing appointment of the 6^th respondent as HSA was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions raised contentions against the maintainability of the revision preferred by the 6^th respondent of which the orders are passed by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the 6^th respondent was a person who was under orders of protection as UPSA for the period from 5.3.1998 to 2.1.2006 and going by the rules, as they stood at the time of arising of the vacancies, she would lose her seniority in the cadre of UPSA for the said period. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the 6^th respondent was appointed to the post of HSA (Social Science) and the petitioners, who have been appointed as HSA (Physical Science) and HSA (Mathematics) were entitled to get their appointments approved with effect from the date of appointment itself. It is contended that the order of the

¶46

WP(C).20706/09 & WP(C).8683/11 3

¶47

Government was not one issued in a revision in accordance with Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA, KER. It is further contended that the said order was completely vitiated for want of notice to the affected parties and an order in the nature of the one passed by the Government could not have been issued without hearing the affected parties.

¶48

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education contending that the petitioners were appointed as UPSA in the aided school much later than the contesting respondents. The 6^th respondent was on protection from 5.3.1998 and she rejoined duty after lifting the protection in 2006. She had acquired qualification for appointment as HSA (Social Science). In the meanwhile, the petitioners in W.P(C).No.8683 of 2011 have been appointed as HSA (Physical Science) and HSA (Mathematics) respectively on 2.6.2008 and the petitioners in W.P(C).No.20706 of 2009 had been appointed as HSA (Social Science) on 10.7.2008 and 1.7.2008 respectively. It is, therefore, contended that since the Government had directed that the 6^th respondent was entitled to appointment in the next arising vacancy of HSA (Social Science) after she acquired qualification, the appointments of the petitioners had not been approved.

¶49

WP(C).20706/09 & WP(C).8683/11 4

¶50

Learned counsel for the 6^th respondent would submit that the 6^th respondent was senior to the petitioners in the cadre of UPSA and that she had acquired the qualification for appointment as HSA (Social Science) in May, 2001. It is, therefore, contended that she was entitled for appointment as HSA (Social Science) in the first vacancy which arose after she became qualified. Various contentions are raised as regards the merits of the claims raised by the 6^th respondent for appointment. However, I am of the opinion that at this juncture, it is not for this Court to go into the merits of the claims raised by the respective parties, since I find that the order of the Government has been issued without notice to any of the affected parties. I am of the opinion that the order of the Government impugned in these writ petitions has to be set aside on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶51

In the result, Exhibit P6 in W.P(C).No.20706 of 2009 (Exhibit P8 in W.P(C).No.8683 of 2011) is set aside. It is directed that the Government shall take up and consider the revision said to have been preferred by the 6^th respondent and pass orders thereon, after hearing the 6^th respondent, Manager and the petitioners in these writ petitions and any other person

¶52

WP(C).20706/09 & WP(C).8683/11 5

¶53

likely to be affected by the result of the decision to be rendered by the Government. The issue regarding maintainability of the revision shall also be considered by the Government while passing orders as directed above. Orders in this regard shall be passed after hearing all the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Approval of appointment of the petitioners will be subject to the final orders to be passed by the Government in this regard. Consequential orders shall be passed by the District Educational Officer within a period of one month after orders passed by the Government.

¶54

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

vgs

Sheeba Beevi S & Another v. State of Kerala, & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeba Beevi S & Another v. State of Kerala, & Others

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

K.K. Pushpangadan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

George Thomas Vs the State Bank of Travancore

Cherian Varghese Vs State of Kerala

C.I.Kochu Vs Mr.B.Srinivasan (Ias)

N.K.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs Velmurugan