Writ petition challenging denial of approval for appointment dated 2010. Court relied on precedent to mandate retrospective approval and disbursement of benefits.
Impugned order set aside; appointment approved from 1.6.2010; approval to be given within three months; monetary benefits within further three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 3198 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
SYAMKUMAR K
AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF R. KESAVAN KUTTY, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, UP SCHOOL, ELIPPAKULAM, PALLIKAL (VIA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 503
BY ADVS.
V A MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE -II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
6 THE MANAGER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Wpc 3198/2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioners approval from initial date of appointment, i.e. from 1.6.2010 has been the declined stating that the manager failed to execute the bond. The appointment was during the ban period. If the Manager had failed to execute the bond, deeming that the manager had executed the bond, the educational officers are bound to approve the appointment from the date of initial appointment. [See the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2290/2015.] That be so, after verifying that there was substantial vacancy to accommodate the petitioner, necessary approval shall be given to the petitioner within three months. Monetary benefits shall be disbursed within a further period of three months. The impugned order is set aside to the extent as above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
ms
Wpc 3198/2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT | P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2010 |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C. 2037/2010/R.DIS DATED 01.11.2010 OF THE AEO KAYAMKULAM ADDRESSING THE MANAGER. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1.8847/10/K.DIS DATED31.05.2011 OF THE DIST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKARA. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F3/60660/2011/DPI.K. DIS DATED 18.04.202 OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO 3037/2016/G.EDN. DATED 23.09.2016. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 2290/15 DATED 25.07.2017 |
| EXHIBIT RESPONDE |
P7 NTS' EXTS: NIL |
TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO. 4477/2017/GEDN. DATED 21.11.2017 |
\TRUE COPY//
PS TO JUDGE
ms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be deemed appointed by deeming the manager's execution of the bond if the manager failed to execute it.
Whether the educational officers are bound to approve the appointment from the initial date of appointment.
What monetary benefits and time limits apply to the petitioner's strained appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Division Bench of this CourtRelied on¶23
W.A.No. 2290/2015
SYAMKUMAR K
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MAVELIKARA
THE MANAGER UP SCHOOL ELIPPAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Parties & counsel
