The Manager, Kottathala Surendran Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2018WA/2673/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of a writ appeal by directing the State to expeditiously dispose of a revision preferred by the appellants before the Government, avoiding a merits decision to protect the administrative process. Interim service orders continue until the revision concludes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to First Respondent to consider and finally dispose of the pending revision expeditiously. Interim order on salary and service continuance continued.

The Manager, Kottathala Surendran Memorial… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 2673 of 2017 IN WPC. 32454/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32454/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-12-2017

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/WRIT PETITIONERS:-

¶8

1 THE MANAGER, KOTTATHALA SURENDRAN MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,

¶9

PIN - 691 505.

¶10

2 S.RAJESH, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), KSMVHSS, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 505, RESIDING AT GIREESH BHAVAN, THOLICODU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 333.

¶11

BY ADV.SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-

¶13

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

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶16

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 506.

¶17

SMT.INDIRAMMA,

¶18

PROTECTED H.S.A.(MALAYALAM),

¶19

KSMVHSS, EDAVATTOM, KARUVELIL P.O.,

¶20

KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 505.

¶21

R1 -R 4 BY ADV. SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No. 2673 of 2017

: 2 :

APPENDIX

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE A1:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13.12.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32454 OF 2017.

¶28

ANNEXURE A2:MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION.

¶29

ANNEXURE A3: I.A. NO. 17687/2017 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) NO. 32454/2017.

¶30

ANNEXURE A4: I.A. NO.17874/2017 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) NO. 32454/2017.

¶31

ANNEXURE A5: I.A. NO. 20376/2017 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) NO.32454/2017.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

/True Copy/

PS TO JUDGE.

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶37

------------------------------------------W.A. No. 2673 of 2017

¶38

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2018.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

K. Surendra Mohan,J.

¶41

The writ petitioners have filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 32454 of 2017. As per the judgment, the learned Single Judge has directed the Government to dispose of a revision preferred by the appellants before the Government, which is pending.

¶42

The first appellant is the Manager of an aided school. He appointed the second appellant as a High School Assistant ('HSA' for short) in Malayalam on 02.06.2008. However, the appointment was not approved stating that a protected teacher ought to have been appointed to the post. The aggrieved appellants had filed W.P.(C) No. 30593 of 2009 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 29.05.2013. As per the judgment, this Court found that the appointment of the second appellant could take effect only from 01.09.2009 and therefore, a direction to approve his appointment with effect from the said date was issued. The said judgment has become final.

¶43

During the year 2017-2018, the second appellant became an excess teacher and was deployed as per Ext.P4. The said proceedings were under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 23771 of 2017. By Ext.P5

¶44

W.A. No. 2673/2017 -2-

¶45

judgment dated 18.07.2017, this Court directed the appellants to submit a representation to the Director of Public Instructions and further directed the said authority to consider and pass orders on the said representation. Accordingly, Ext.P6 representation was preferred. The same was also heard. However, before any orders were passed thereon, the second appellant was denied his salary and increments by Exts.P10 and P12 orders. It was challenging the said proceedings that the writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that a copy of the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction was obtained by the appellants and a revision was preferred before the Government. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition directing the Government to consider and pass final orders on the said revision. However, since no direction for the continuance of the second appellant in service and for the payment of his salary was issued by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed.

¶46

After this writ appeal was admitted, as per the orders in I.A. Nos. 1596 of 2017 and 89 of 2018 dated 21.12.2017 and 22.01.2018 respectively, we directed that the second appellant shall be continued in service and paid his salary. Accordingly, it is not in dispute that the second appellant is continuing to work in the school and receiving salary in compliance with our direction.

¶47

W.A. No. 2673/2017

¶48

-3-

¶49

Heard. Though the counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Government Pleader have put forward various contentions before us, since Ext.P13 revision is pending before the Government, we do not propose to consider the respective contentions advanced before us on the merits. Any such consideration would adversely affect the consideration of the revision by the Government. We notice that the learned Single Judge has only directed the revision to be disposed of. Therefore, it shall be sufficient that this appeal is disposed of directing the revision that is pending to be disposed of expeditiously.

¶50

In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and finally dispose of Ext.P13 revision preferred by the appellants and pending before the Government expeditiously. The interim order granted by this Court shall continue to be in force until the final orders are passed on the revision that is pending and communicated to the appellants.

¶51

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.

¶52

ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE.

¶53

¶54

W.A. No. 2673/2017 -4-

The Manager, Kottathala Surendran Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, Kottathala Surendran Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School 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

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Raji E.D

Manager, Junior Basic School, Vettukad Vs State of Kerala

The President Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Ally Tresa George

The Janakeeya Co-Operative Urban Society Ltd. Vs Reeja.P

Manager Vs State of Kerala