Allowed

The Manager, Chemanchery East U.P.School v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC5 Apr 2017WP(C)/24530/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sole Justice Sivaraman allowed a writ petition contesting a Government order on appointment approval. The Court found the order unsustainable due to lack of notice to the school manager. The Government was directed to reconsider the appointment approval for both the petitioner teacher and the rival claimant with notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order set aside. First Respondent directed to reconsider appointment approval for 2nd and 5th respondents with notice to all within 3 months.

The Manager, Chemanchery East U.P.School Vs the State… — 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 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/15TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 24530 of 2010 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. THE MANAGER, CHEMANCHERY EAST U.P.SCHOOL, CHEMANCHERY, KOYILANDY EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE.

¶8

2. K.K.RAVEENDRAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, CHEMANCHERY EAST U.P.SCHOOL CHEMANCHERY, KOYILANDY EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM -14.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, CALICUT 673 020.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 305.

¶15

5. SMT.VIJITHA, W/O.KUNJIRAMAN, GANAPATHYKANDY, KUNNATHUKUNIYIL HOUSE, P.O. KALLODE 673 305, (VIA) PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶17

SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN SMT.D.S.THUSHARA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 24530 of 2010 (M)

¶21

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

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2008.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2882/08/K.DIS. OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 07.08.2008.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO. 3143/2010/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 20.07.2010.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER DATED NIL.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY SMT. T.VIJITHA DATED 24.09.2009.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2010(2) K.L.T.99 DATED 15.02.2010.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE SMT. R.NEETHU DATED NIL.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶32

EXHIBIT R5(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.09.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
EXHIBIT R5(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.06.2008 FILED BEFORE THE AEO.
EXHIBIT R5(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.06.2008 FILED BEFORE THE MANAGER.
EXHIBIT R5(E):	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2008 IN W.P(C).NO. 18835/2008.
EXHIBIT R5(F):	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2882/08/K.DIS. DATED 07.08.2008.
EXHIBIT R5(G):	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. O.G3/33628/09/DPI DATED 03.08.2009.
EXHIBIT R5(H):	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE GOVT.
EXHIBIT R5(I):	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2010 IN W.P(C).NO. 2849/2010.

¶33

WP(C).No. 24530 of 2010 (M)

¶34

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

¶35

EXHIBIT R5(J): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GOVT. DATED 18.05.2010.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶40

W.P.(C).No.24530 of 2010

¶41

Dated this, the 05^th day of April, 2017.

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Challenge in this writ petition, filed by the Manager of an aided school and a UPSA appointed on 05.06.2006,

¶44

is against Ext.P3 order of the Government.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶46

the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶47

It is stated that the 5^th respondent, who had

¶48

prior approved service as Sanskrit teacher in the school, had preferred a revision before the Government and it was directed to be disposed of. However, the specific case raised by the 5^th respondent was with regard to her claim for appointment as Sanskrit teacher in a vacancy which arose in the LP section of the school. It is therefore stated that the 2^nd petitioner, who was a UPSA appointed on 05.06.2006 is unaware of the claim raised by the 5^th

¶49

W.P.(C).No.24530 of 2010 : 2 :

¶50

respondent against his appointment. It is contended that the 5^th respondent was re-appointed as a part-time Sanskrit teacher on 05.06.2006 in a regular anticipated vacancy. Approval was declined for her appointment for the reason that there was a ban of creation of posts and against appointment in such vacancies. The 5^th respondent had earlier approved service as part-time Sanskrit teacher. The 5^th respondent raised claim for appointment as Sanskrit teacher in vacancies which arose after her earlier approved service. It is submitted that by Ext.R5(g), dated 03.08.2009, the Additional Director of Public Instructions found that the petitioner, being a 51A claimant and a B.Ed. holder, is eligible for appointment as UPSA in vacancies for the year 2006-07. However, it was found that the vacancy which arose in 2008 was of an LPSA and that the petitioner who did not have TTC qualification could not be appointed against the said post. The 5^th respondent preferred Ext.R5(h) Revision before the Government challenging the order of the DPI. The

¶51

W.P.(C).No.24530 of 2010 : 3 :

¶52

teacher who had been appointed as LPSA in 2008 was a party in the said revision. While hearing the revision, the Government found that the appointment of the 2^nd petitioner, a fresh hand from 05.06.2006 as UPSA could not be sustained and that the 5^th respondent was entitled to get appointment. However, the said order has apparently been issued without issuing notice to the 2^nd petitioner.

¶53

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the ban on creation of posts and appointments which was in force for the year 2006-07 having been lifted, the 5^th respondent would be entitled to approval of appointment as part-time Sanskrit teacher w.e.f. 05.06.2006 itself without disturbing the appointment of the 2^nd petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not been examined by any of the authorities so far. Since Ext.P3 order has been issued without issuing notice to the 2^nd petitioner, I am of the view that the same cannot be sustained.

¶54

W.P.(C).No.24530 of 2010 : 4 :

¶55

In the above view of the matter, since the issue of approval of appointment to the 5^th respondent on lifting the ban has not been considered by the respondents, I am of the view that the issue has to be re-considered by the first respondent State with notice to the petitioners as well as the 5^th respondent and orders have to be rendered on the issue of approval of 2^nd petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent.

¶56

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P3 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to take up the issue of approval of appointment of the 5^th respondent as Sanskrit teacher w.e.f. 05.06.2006 and to pass orders on the same afresh with notice to the petitioners and the 5^th respondent. The approval of appointment of the 2^nd petitioner shall also be considered by the Government. Orders as directed above shall be issued taking note of the orders withdrawing the ban, creation of posts and appointments for the year 2006-07. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the first respondent within 3 months

¶57

W.P.(C).No.24530 of 2010 : 5 :

¶58

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on receiving a bond from the Manager if so required.

¶59

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶61

Bb/10/04/2017

¶62

[True copy]

¶63

P.A to Judge

The Manager, Chemanchery East U.P.School v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, Chemanchery East U.P.School v. the State of Kerala and 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

C.A. Alophonsa Vs State of Kerala

Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Durolac Vs State of Kerala

P.S. Thomas Vs Sree Kumar

Swami Sivananda Yogi Vs K. Padmadas

K.T.Joseph Vs the State of Kerala