Allowed

P.S.Seena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017WP(C)/23470/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the approval of appointments of teachers against posts rejected for lack of protected teacher proposals. The court held that identical later appointments receiving retroactive approval entitle petitioners to backdated approval from their initial dates, directing respondents to process pay due within one month.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed for approval of appointment with effect from initial dates and disbursal of amounts due within one month.

P.S.Seena 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

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23470 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. P.S.SEENA.,

¶8

WIFE OF PREM, AGED 33 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(SOCIAL SCIENCE), PADAMANABHODAYAM TEACHERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE, P.O.MEZHUVELI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. N.PRASAD.,

¶10

HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(MALAYALAM), S.N.T.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶11

3. REKHA RAJ.,

¶12

HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(PHYSICAL SCIENCE), S.N.T.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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

¶16

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.

¶17

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 001.

¶18

4. THE CORPORATION MANAGER, S.N. TRUST SCHOOLS, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶19

R2 & R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADERSMT. MERRY BEENA GEORGE R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sdr/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 23470 of 2015 (G)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.7.2004.

¶26

P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2005.

¶27

P3- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 2.7.2003.

¶28

P4- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.)NO.19/09/G.EDN. DATED 9.2.2009 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶29

P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2007.

¶30

P5(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2005.

¶31

P5(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER AND APPROVAL THEREOF DATED 24.7.2003.

¶32

P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 3.11.2014.

¶33

P6(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 3.11.2014.

¶34

P6(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 3.11.2014.

¶35

P7- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.2299/2015/G.EDN. DATED 11.6.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶36

P8- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.3445/2014/G.EDN. DATED 27.8.2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶37

P9- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.[C]NO.12380/2012 DATED 1.08.2015.

¶38

P10- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 3445/2014/G.EDN. DATED 27.08.2014

¶39

P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4/2755/15/K.DIS. DATED 10.1.2015

¶40

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.23470 of 2015

¶46

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2017

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

The petitioners are teachers appointed under the 4^th respondent Management on 23.7.2004, 1.6.2005 and 2.7.2003, respectively. The proposals for approval of their appointment were rejected on the ground that the vacancies against which they had been appointed ought to have been filled up by appointing protected teachers.

¶49

A revision petition filed by the petitioners seeking for approval of their appointment from the date of their original appointment was rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is stated that the petitioners' appointment had been approved with effect from 1.2.2006. However, they have not been given the benefit of approval with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

¶50

Heard. The petitioners contend that the persons who have been appointed by the very same Management after the petitioners' appointment have been granted the benefit of approval with effect from the date of their appointment as per Exts.P10 and P11 orders. It is also contended that in respect of an HSA (Mathematics), who had been appointed in the very

¶51

W.P.(C) No.23470 of 2015 2

¶52

same educational agency from 6.8.2004. Ext.P9 judgment has been rendered by this Court directing the approval of appointment from the initial date of their appointment itself. This judgment has been rendered in the light of the decision of this Court in Nadeera T.S and Another v. State of Kerala & Others [2011(3) KLT 790] as confirmed by the Division Bench as well as the Apex court.

¶53

In view of the specific contentions of the 4^th

¶54

respondent that no list of protected teachers in the Educational Sub District had been made available by the Deputy Director of Education himself as on the date of appointment of the petitioners, the issue is purely covered by the decision of this Court in Nadeera's case(Supra). Identically placed teachers have already been granted approval with effect from the initial date itself. I am therefore of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioners is liable to be approved with effect from the date of their initial appointment. The respondents shall immediately take steps to approve the appointment of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial appointment, ie., 23.7.2004, 1.6.2005 and 2.7.2003, respectively. Orders in this regard, shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt

¶55

W.P.(C) No.23470 of 2015

¶56

¶57

of a copy of this judgment. The amounts due to the petitioners shall be calculated and disbursed to them within a period of one month thereafter.

¶58

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶61

sab

P.S.Seena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Seena 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyothikumari.N.K Vs Shri.N.Rajagopal

K.P.Jalaludeen Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Usha P.T.A Vs the Registrar

Genesis Institute of Medical Science Vs Kannur Municipal Corporation

Dr.Joseph Mar Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Miss. Saheeda Ummer Vs the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies