The High Court of Kerala rejected a review petition filed by a teacher seeking reconsideration of his disqualification for post protection. The court found no error apparent on the record, rejecting the contention that a circular filled gaps in the relevant Government Order provisions.
Review petition rejected in limine.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WA 2032/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
LENCY.K.L AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. LAWRENCE V.M, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT KAKKASSERY HOUSE, KOTTAPPADI P.O, THRISSUR 680 505
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:
1 SUNIL JOHN MATHEW
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. P.M MATHEW, PERAMPIL HOUSE, AIMURY P.O, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR 683 544 (NOW WORKING AS H.S.A MALAYALAM) MAR THOMA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THRISSUR-1
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
2
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of January 2020
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The review petition is filed on the basis of the liberty reserved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. An S.L.P. was filed
from the judgment of this Court and after addressing arguments, permission was sought for withdrawal of the S.L.P with liberty to file review petition before the High Court bringing to our notice the various Government orders which are relevant to consider the issue of grant of protection. In the review, no other Government order is referred to other than that already considered and the ground is that the Circular issued by the Government is to be construed as filling up the gaps; which is consistent with the Rules already framed.
3
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
Assistant) by virtue of Ext.P5 order. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as UPSA (Upper Primary School Assistant) in 1999 and then promoted as HSA on 01.06.2016. The review petitioner was appointed in the vacancy of UPSA, created by the promotion of the 1st respondent. In the subject year, there occurred a division fall in the High School and the 1st respondent had to vacate his post and would have been retrenched. However by virtue of the 1st respondent having been promoted to the post of HSA, he was entitled to be reverted to the category of UPSA and allowed to continue there. On such reversion the review petitioner would be retrenched, against which the writ petition was filed.
4
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
teachers who are appointed in the aided schools and continued with approval as on 31.03.2011 and by clause I(2), those who obtained approval as per the teachers package from 01.06.2011. As for the promotees what was applicable is Clause I(5); enabling protection, inter alia to those promoted and approved, between 2011-12 and 2014-15. The 1st respondent having been promoted and approved only with effect from 01.06.2016, did not have the benefit of protection.
5
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
restriction as spoken of in clause I(5) of Ext.P5, was our finding in appeal.
6
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
reservation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order in SLP produced as Annexure 1 in the review petition. The permission sought and allowed was to bring to the notice of this Court various G.O's relevant to the subject matter. There is no G.O pointed out which was not considered in the appeal. As far as the ground raised of the Circular being not a part of the record; despite that, we looked into the same as proffered by the review petitioner itself, across the Bar, at the time of hearing of the appeal. We also extracted the circular in our judgment, quite concious of the fact that it was not part of the record. We did not want to shut out a legitimate plea on technical grounds and even now, the review petitioner does not produce the Circular on record, despite grounds urged on its sustainability in the review petition.
The grounds raised in the review are all of sustainability of the Circular and the precedential value of the decision in A.V. Sathyabhama . These contentions were elaborately dealt with and negatived in the judgment in appeal. The attempt is for a rehearing and there is no G.O referred to as having been not noticed while disposing of the appeal. We neither find any grounds stated for review nor addressed as per the specific
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
7
permission sought for before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, of reliance to various G.Os, while seeking withdrawal of the SLP. The review petition is rejected in limine.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Shg
RP.No.1305 OF 2019 IN WA. 2032/2018
8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE1
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.L.P. NO.16905/2019 DATED 26.07.2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioner established an error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review of the appellate judgment regarding teacher protection.
Whether the circular cited by the petitioner is a valid omission filling a gap in the applicable Government Order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
DEO, Kannur Vs. A.V. SathyabhamaDistinguished¶5
DEO, Kannur Vs. A.V. Sathyabhama [2016 (4) KHC 911]
A.V. SathyabhamaReferred¶6
A.V. Sathyabhama
Lency.K.L
Sunil John Mathew
State of Kerala
District Educational Officer, Thrissur
Mar Thoma Girls Higher Secondary School, Thrissur
Director, General Education Department
K. Vinod Chandran
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
