Disposed

Nousheeda.P.K v. Director of Public Instruction

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019WP(C)/16934/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition filed by an employee seeking approval of her appointment orders. The court directed the first respondent to consider the revision petition, afford a hearing to interested parties, and pass orders within two months. No other relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the first respondent to consider the revision petition and pass orders within two months after hearing.

Nousheeda.P.K Vs Director of Public Instruction — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.16934 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NOUSHEEDA.P.K AGED 37 YEARS UPSA, AUP SCHOOL, PARAPPUR, MALAPPURAM - 676503

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE RENOY SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014

¶11

2 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VENGARA, MALAPPURAM - 676304

¶12

3 THE MANAGER AUP SCHOOL, PARAPPUR, MALAPPURAM - 680552

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL ,GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.16934 of 2019

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner, who has been working as UPSA under the 3^rd respondent, is aggrieved by the denial of approval to her appointment from 06.12.2012 onwards. Petitioner points out that she was appointed as per Ext.P2 order in a promotion vacancy from 06.12.2012 onwards and thereafter, she was again appointed on 01.06.2015 in another permanent vacancy as per Ext.P3 order; that order is not so far approved. Pointing out these, the petitioner has approached the 1^st respondent with Ext.P6 revision petition.

¶20

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 revision petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Manager, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶21

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No.16934 of 2019

¶24

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10.08.2010

¶28

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06.12.2012 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2018 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 14.12.2018 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, MANAGER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶30

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 11.04.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Nousheeda.P.K v. Director of Public Instruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nousheeda.P.K v. Director of Public Instruction

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

Sinu P.A Vs Central University of Kerala

Ajith Fredjeev Dinakarlal Vs Marian College

Christ College (Autonomous) Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Private Primary Headmaster'S Association, Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu.P Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala