Quashed

Leelamma Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2018WP(C)/11656/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the State Government lacked jurisdiction under Rule 93 of Kerala Education Rules to review its own revisional order. Consequently, the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for regular appointment as a Part Time Hindi Teacher was set aside, and benefits were directed to be granted within four months.

What did the court decide?

The Government order dated 14.03.2018 (Ext.P8) is set aside and necessary benefits to be given to the petitioner within four months.

Leelamma Philip Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 11656 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LEELAMMA PHILIP PART TIME L.G. HINDI TEACHER, ST.ANDREWS U.P.SCHOOL, KANATHARKUNNAM, KARALI JUNCTION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM-690543.

¶8

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM-690521.

¶13

4 THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, THE DIOCESE OF QUILON, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, BISHOP'S HOUSE, KOLLAM-691007.

¶14

5 THE HEADMISTRESS ST.ANDREWS U.P.SCHOOL KANATHARKUNNAM, KARALI JUNCTION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM-690543.

¶15

BY ADVS. S GOPINATHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 11656 of 2018

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner was appointed in the permanent vacancy of Part Time Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in St.Andrews U.P.S., Kanatharkunnam, under the corporate management of diocese of Quilon with effect from 01.06.2015.

¶21

Petitioner had an earlier spell on daily wages. The matter in issue is regarding the approval of appointment as a Part Time Lower Grade Hindi teacher. The department had approved the appointment on daily wages, as seen from Ext.P3. The matter was carried in revision before the Government. The revision was disposed pursuant to a direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19521/2017 vide Ext.P7 order dated 22.02.2018. In that Government order it was held that the petitioner shall be approved as a Part Time Language Teacher (Hindi) on regular basis from 01.06.2015 onwards.

¶22

The government adverted to Rule 6(2)(iii)(f) of

¶23

Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, (for short 'KER') 1959, for allowing the claim of the petitioner.

¶24

WP(C).No. 11656 of 2018

¶25

¶26

Thereafter Government reviewed the order suo motu vide Ext.P8 Government Order dated 14.03.2018, which was issued without issuance of notice to the petitioner. The Government reviewed the order and rejected the petitioner's claim for regular appointment from 01.06.2015 to 31.03.2016.

¶27

The legality of the order passed by the Government in review is in question before this Court. A Full Bench of this Court, in Anilkumar P. v. Sate of Kerala and Others [2009(3) KHC 596] held that Government has no power to entertain a review petition under Rule 93 of Chapter XIV.A of KER which reads as follows:

¶28

93. Review only of original orders:- Government shall on application of the party, review the original orders. There shall be only one review and application for review shall be made within a period of two months from the date of the order.”

¶29

It clearly states that the Government can review the original orders on application by parties. No other power is conferred on Government to review the revisional orders passed by the Government itself.

¶30

Therefore, I hold that the review order is void and without jurisdiction in the light of the Full Bench

¶31

WP(C).No. 11656 of 2018

¶32

¶33

judgment. Apart from that the fact finding cannot be disputed by the Government. Government, in the review order only states that the Government relied on Rule 6(2) (iii)(f) of Chapter XXIII of KER by an inadvertent mistake and that is only applicable to Arabic teachers. It may be true that placing reliance on the above rule is a mistake. The government had not disputed the finding in regard to the assessment of periods even if the reference to Rule 6(2) was a mistake. Therefore petitioner's claim is admissible under Rule 6(1). It clearly states that if the number of period per week is available above four, a part time post can be sanctioned.

¶34

The learned counsel for the Government then argued that the school was an uneconomic school and therefore, appointment can be made only on daily wages.

¶35

I am not adverting to this aspect inasmuch as that the legality of the order passed in the review by the Government alone need to be considered. As I have already found that the Government cannot review its own order in revision, that order has to be set aside. Accordingly Ext.P8 order is set aside. Necessary benefits

¶36

WP(C).No. 11656 of 2018

¶37

¶38

shall be given to the petitioner in the light of Ext.P7 order within a period of four months.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of as above

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

SKK /ad/231118

¶44

WP(C).No. 11656 of 2018

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2013.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.6.2014.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1.6.2015.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONER WORKED AS LOWER GRADE PART TIME HINDI TEACHER FROM 1.6.2016 TO 31.03.2017.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 1.11.2016.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.19521/2017.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.797/2018/G.EDN. DATED 22.02.2018.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.1079/2018/G.EDN. DATED 14.03.2018.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.58604/J2/12/G.EDN. DATED 6.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Leelamma Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelamma Philip 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Sacaria Vs Mr.Pradeep

Noufal P Vs State of Kerala

Habeeb Ali.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sijimol C G Vs the Manager

T.Sivasankaran Vs Assistant Educational Officer, Cherpulassery

C.E.Jose Vs T.G.Ruby