Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Bibin Jose Mathew

Kerala HC4 Jul 2019WA/653/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the State challenged a judgment directing the Director of Educational Officer to approve teachers' appointments. The Court held that since the Government cancelled its contrary order, the original government order stands revived. Consequently, finding no ground to fault the lower court's directions, the writ appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and review petition were dismissed with no order as to costs.

State of Kerala Vs Bibin Jose Mathew — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.653 of 2019

¶8

ORDER DATED 4.1.2019 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.1097/2018 AND

¶9

JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37959/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13.12.2017

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WP.(C):

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX-11, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA, 695 014.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA 695 645.

¶15

SR.GP. A.J.VARGHESE

¶16

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 5TH RESPONDENT IN WP.(C):

¶17

1 BIBIN JOSE MATHEW

¶18

S/O. JOSSY, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT PHYSICAL SCIENCE REV. D.R. C.T. EAPEN MEMORIAL ST. THOMAS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 691 525.

W.A.No.653 of 2019

2 JULIES JOHN,

W/O. NIJU PAPPAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT NATURAL SCIENCE, REV. DR.C.T. EAPEN MEMORIAL ST. THOAMS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 691 525.

¶23

3 MANAGER, REV.D.R.C.T. EAPEN MEMORIAL ST. THOAMS VOCATIONAL HIGHER E SECONDARY SCHOOL, PANNIVIZHA, ANANDAPPALLY P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHTITA, 691 525.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN SRI.ABEL ANTONY

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.653 of 2019

JUDGMENT

V.G.ARUN, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the State, aggrieved by the direction in the impugned judgment to approve the appointment of the petitioners, as also the dismissal of the review petition filed by the appellants against the said judgment.

¶31

2. The petitioners were appointed as High School Assistants in the Rev.Dr.C.T.Eapen Memorial St.Thomas Vocational Higher Secondary School ('the School' for short) on 1.6.2016 and 10.6.2016 respectively. The District Educational Officer (DEO) having refused to approve the appointments of the petitioners, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Government which culminated in Ext.P2 order, directing grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioners

¶32

W.A.No.653 of 2019

¶33

¶34

with effect from the original date of their appointments. Even though the Manager of the School submitted a proposal for approval of the petitioners' appointments, the DEO did not pass any order thereon and hence, the writ petition was

¶35

filed for directing the DEO to implement Ext.P2 order of the Government and grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners with effect from

¶36

the original dates of their appointments in the school. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the DEO to immediately implement Ext.P2 order and pass orders approving the appointments of the petitioners as directed in Ext.P2 within a period of three weeks.

¶37

3. After the impugned judgment was rendered,

¶38

the Government issued Annexure-I order, cancelling Ext.P2 order and rejecting the revision petition

¶39

W.A.No.653 of 2019

¶40

¶41

filed by the petitioners. The explanation offered

¶42

for such volte-face by the Government was that while issuing Ext.P2 order, the Government had failed to consider the fact that the School was a

¶43

newly opened school and as per G.O.(P) No.199/16/G.Edn. dated 14.12.2016 and Rule 7(3) of Chapter XXI of KER, all vacancies in newly opened schools have to be filled with protected teachers with effect from 29.1.2016. When the issuance of Annexure I order was brought to the notice of this Court, strong exception was taken against the issuance of Annexure-I, with the objective of circumventing the direction contained in Ext.P2 and thereupon, the Government issued Annexure-II order cancelling Anneuxre-I. Thereafter, the

¶44

review petition was filed by the Government seeking to review the judgment, on the same reason stated in Annexure-I order. The learned Single

¶45

W.A.No.653 of 2019

¶46

¶47

Judge considered the review petition in extenso

¶48

and dismissed the same. It was found that in the absence of power of review, the Government could not have issued Annexure-I order. As regards the contentions based on the amendment to Rule 7(3) of

¶49

Chapter XXI of KER, it was found that the amendment is under challenge at the instance of the Managers of aided High Schools, including the

¶50

third respondent Manager and this Court has ordered status quo to be maintained with respect to applicability of the said amendment. In the

¶51

writ appeal, the contentions in the review petition are reiterated. We find that the contention based on the amendment to Rule 7(3) of Chapter XXI KER, is not sustainable at present in view of the status quo order issued by this Court. Further, the Government having cancelled Annexure -I order, Ext.P2 order stands revived and hence

¶52

W.A.No.653 of 2019

¶53

¶54

the directions in the judgment to implement Ext.P2 cannot be faulted.

¶55

Hence, we find no sustainable ground of challenge in the writ appeal and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶58

sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/4.07

W.A.No.653 of 2019

APPENDIX

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶64

ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.3/2019/G.EDN. DATED 28.2.2019.

¶65

ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 8.3.2019 BEARIGN NO.J2/56/2019/G.EDN.

¶66

ANNEXURE R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16TH JANUARY 2018 IN WP(C) NO.1637 OF 2018 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT MANAGER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT BY WHICH THE STATUS QUO IS MAINTAINED AS 19/2/2017 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHOOL OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.

¶67

ANNEXURE R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.8.2016 IN SLP (C) NO.15726/2016.

¶68

ANNEXURE R1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.8.2017 IN DIARY NO.21032/2017 IN SLP (CIVIL) NO.21623/2017 DATED 8/8/2017 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT.

State of Kerala v. Bibin Jose Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Bibin Jose Mathew

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

Dr. Valyomana A.G. Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Nirmala v., Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Abdul Muhammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Beeran Maliyekkal, Vs the District Police Chief

State of Kerala, Vs General Manager

Haridas.K.P Vs the District Police Chief