Disposed

Saritha E.K., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020WP(C)/31557/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging rejection of appointment approval moved to treat the matter based on pending statutory appeals. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to decide merits and directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals with a hearing within two months, considering de facto principles.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Additional District Educational Officer to dispose of the statutory appeals filed by the petitioners within two months after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Saritha E.K., Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.31557 OF 2019(T)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SARITHA E.K., AGED 39 YEARS, UPST, PATHIRIPATTA UP SCHOOL, P.O. PATHIRIPATTA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, RESIDING AT VATHUKKALPARAMBATH, P.O. VATTOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 507.

¶8

2 SHINI T.P., UPST, PATHIRIPATTA UP SCHOOL, P.O. PATHIRIPATTA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MAVULLAPARAMBATH, PATHIRIPATTA P O,KAKKATTIL VIA, KOZHIKODE - 673 507.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALIDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNUMAL P.O.,MOKERI, KOHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 507.

¶13

3 THE MANAGER, PATHIRIPATTA UP SCHOOL, P.O. PATHIRIPATTA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 507.

¶14

4 ADDL.R4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 101. ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/12/2020 IN I.A.NO.4/20 IN WP(C) NO.31557/2019. R1, R2 & R4 BY SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.31557 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 18^th day of December 2020

¶20

The petitioners, who say that they were appointed as Upper Primary School Teachers in the Pathiripatta U.P. School – of which, the third respondent is the Manager – had originally approached this Court through this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the proposal of approval of their appointments with effect from 06.06.2019, as is evident from Exts.P1 and P2; but today, when this matter was called, Sri. R.K. Muralidharan, their learned counsel submitted that pending this lis, Ext.P6 order has been issued by the second respondent – Assistant Educational Officer, rejecting their proposals primarily for the reason that the Manager, who appointed them, had not been approved.

¶21

Sri. R. K.Muralidharan submits that, therefore, his clients have preferred Exts.P7 and P7(a) statutory appeals before the additional fourth respondent – District Educational Officer, Vadakara and prays that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶22

After praying as afore, Sri. R. K. Muralidharan contends that the reason stated in Ext.P6 – that the Manger has

¶23

WP(C).No.31557 of 2019

¶24

¶25

not approved – is not a valid one to deny approval to his clients, because, as is manifest from Exts.P4 and P5, the said Manager has already been found to be competent to act as such during the relevant period. Sri. R. K. Muralidharan, therefore, prays that Exts.P7 and P7(a) be directed to be taken up and disposed of, adverting to these facts also.

¶26

In response, the learned Government Pleader, Smt. Nisha Bose, however, submitted that Ext.P6 makes it clear that the reason why the petitioners' approval of appointments have been rejected is not solely that the Manager had not been approved, but there are other issues also. She, therefore, prayed that this Court may allow the additional fourth respondent – District Educational Officer to consider and pass orders on Exts.P7 and P7(a), as per law, without entering into the merits of any other contentions of the petitioners.

¶27

When I consider the afore submissions, it is doubtless that this Court is incompetent at this stage to go into the issues urged by the petitioners, since, admittedly, a statutory appeal has already been filed by them.

¶28

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the additional fourth respondent – District Educational Officer to take up Exts.P7 and P7(a) appeals of the

¶29

WP(C).No.31557 of 2019

¶30

¶31

petitioners and dispose it of, after affording them and the Manager of the school and an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – as expeditiously as is possible, but within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

Needless to say, when the afore exercise is taken forward, the additional fourth respondent – District Educational Officer will keep in mind the principles of de facto doctrine, with respect to the post of managership and will also advert specifically to Exts.P4 and P5 documents.

¶33

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶34

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No.31557 of 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 DATED 06-06-2019 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 DATED 06-06-2019 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER OF THE SCHOOL FOR THE YEAR 2019-20 DATED 16-07-2019.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.38630/2015 DATED 18-12-2015.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-01-2016.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DEO, VATAKARA IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7A	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DEO, VATAKARA IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT R3(A)	A TRUE COPY MEETING HELD	OF THE MINUTES OF THE ON 12.05.2019.
EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF	SCHEME OF WORK
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF KRISHNAVENI	APPLICATION OF SMT.

Saritha E.K., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saritha E.K., v. the State of Kerala

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

Antony Shiju Vs State of Kerala

Geetha P.V. Vs the Vaikom Municipality

Sreekutty. S Vs the State of Kerala

Merlin Cyriac Vs the Karuna Speech and Hearing Higher Secondary School

P.Sushamadevi Vs State of Kerala

Malathi Amma Vs State of Kerala