Dismissed

The State of Kerala v. Sreelaja N.

Kerala HC11 Jul 2019WA/800/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench of this Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State against a Single Judge order approving a petitioner as Lower Primary School Assistant. The court rejected the condonation of 352-day delay due to lack of satisfactory explanation and dismissed the appeal on merits as unfounded.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of delay condonation application and dismissal of the writ appeal on merits.

The State of Kerala Vs Sreelaja N. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.800 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34101/2015 DATED 06.02.2018 of HIGH COURT

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY NORTH, MINI CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670101.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 SREEJALA N., D/O.K.P.SREEDHARAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KELALUR UP SCHOOL, P.O.MAMBARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670741, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PINARAYI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670741.

¶16

2 THE MANAGER, KELALUR UP SCHOOL, P.O.MAMBARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670741.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SR.GP.A.J.VARGHESE

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA.No.800 of 2019 .. 2 ..

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶22

The appeal is by the State against the

¶23

judgment of the learned Single Judge, which

¶24

directed the approval of the petitioner, appointed as LPSA as on 01.06.2010. The appeal itself is filed with a delay of 352 days. The certified copy of the judgment

¶25

dated 06.02.2018 admittedly was received by the appellant/State on 17.03.2018. The 1^st respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner was before this Court with a contempt of Court case on 04.12.2018. It is after the said Contempt of Court case that the above appeal has been filed on 13.03.2019; almost four months after the Contempt of Court case was filed.

¶26

We were not satisfied with the grounds

¶27

in the affidavit filed to explain the

¶28

WA.No.800 of 2019 .. 3 ..

¶29

condonation of delay. We hence directed the

¶30

learned Government Pleader to file a fresh

¶31

affidavit by a competent Officer. A fresh affidavit has been filed, in which paragraph 3 speaks off the file having been pushed from

¶32

one desk to another in the various departments of the State, seeking opinion from one or other Officer. Eventually, the file is said to have been transmitted to the

¶33

Office of the Advocate General with a communication dated 19.12.2018 for filing an appeal.

¶34

We also see from the affidavit that

¶35

there is a specific ground raised as to the learned Single Judge having not noticed that

¶36

the school comes under the category of

¶37

“schools without sufficient number of

¶38

students”. We do not think that can be a explanation for the delay. It can only be a

¶39

ground of appeal. There is hence, no

¶40

WA.No.800 of 2019 .. 4 ..

¶41

satisfactory explanation offered in the

¶42

affidavit to condone the delay of 352 days.

¶43

We also notice the judgment of the

¶44

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Chief Post

¶45

Master General v. Living Media India Ltd.

¶46

[2012(3) SCC 563], which refused to condone

¶47

the delay in filing an SLP, wherein the challenge was against the dismissal of a

¶48

intra-court-appeal, where too there was

¶49

considerable delay. We respectfully follow

¶50

the dictum in the aforesaid case also.

¶51

We also notice that the submission in

¶52

the affidavit in explanation of the delay

¶53

that the learned Single Judge failed to

¶54

notice that it is an “uneconomic school” is

¶55

not correct. The learned Single Judge has

¶56

specifically noticed the contention and found

¶57

that there was a dispute with respect to the Headmistres's post and rival claimants were appointed to the same, which eventually was

¶58

WA.No.800 of 2019 .. 5 ..

¶59

found to be wrong and approval granted in the name of one Chithralekha from 01.11.2012. It

¶60

was Chithralekha's vacancy that was filled by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the learned Single Judge noticed that the writ petitioner

¶61

was appointed as an LPSA to the resultant

¶62

vacancy from 01.06.2010, wherein she

¶63

continued and was entitled to approval. This

¶64

entitlement alone was declared in the

¶65

judgment, which cannot be faulted.

¶66

In such circumstance, we do not think that there is any merit too in the appeal. We reject the delay condonation application as also the appeal on merits.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SB/12/07/2019

The State of Kerala v. Sreelaja N.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Sreelaja N.

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

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Dr. Rachel George M

Yesudasan Vs Ressalamma @ Victorial Ressalamma

Josco Rubber (Pondy) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Inspector Generalof Police

Aneesh, Vs the State of Kerala

Regi.a.B., Vs the Superintendent of Police(Rural)

State of Kerala Vs George M.A.