Disposed

The Manager, C.a.Higher Secondary School, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2021WA/1521/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ appeal arising from WP(C) 16887/2014, which challenged the Single Judge's order granting the reinstatement and confirming service regularization of a High School teacher. The Court declined interference noting the efflux of more than seven years and allowed the decision to remain but clarified that the appellant is free to initiate fresh disciplinary action aga

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the Single Judge's judgment confirming reinstatement and regularization was upheld, though the appellant was retained the right to initiate fresh disciplinary action for

The Manager, C.a.Higher Secondary School, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 1521 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16887/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶9

KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶11

THE MANAGER, C.A.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014, (NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION).

¶16

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶17

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶18

5 SRI.MERVIN T.VINCENT, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH),

¶19

W A.No.1521 of 2021

¶20

¶21

C.A.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, COYALMANNAM-678 702, PALAKKAD, (RESIDING AT THECKINATH HOUSE, P.O.EDATHURUTHY, THRISSUR-680 730).

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W A.No.1521 of 2021

¶24

¶25

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JJ

¶26

W A.No.1521 of 2021

¶27

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2021

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar,J

¶30

The Manager of the C.A.Higher Secondary School, Kuzhalmannam, Palakkad District, the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.16887 of 2014 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.4.2021 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

¶31

The petitioner approached this Court impugning Ext.P11 order of the Government that ordered reinstatement of the 5^th respondent High School Teacher holding that the allegations alleged against the said teacher in disciplinary proceedings that were initiated by the writ petitioner were 'flimsy and silly' and on account of the “intentional enimical attitude taken by the Manager and a group of teachers to trap him'.

¶32

The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found force in the contention of the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent teacher and agreed with the findings of the Government in Ext.P11 order. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that, in view of the efflux of time where more than seven years had expired, pursuant to the arising of the cause of action and the 5^th respondent

¶33

W A.No.1521 of 2021

¶34

¶35

teacher continued to be in service without any allegation being raised against him, there was no purpose in requiring the Government to continue the proceedings initiated against the 5^th respondent in 2013. The writ petition was therefore, dismissed confirming Ext.P11 and with a consequential direction to the District Education Officer to take steps for declaration of the probation of the 5^th respondent and for disbursement of his eligible benefits without any avoidable delay.

¶36

Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge while regularising the order of reinstatement and the regularisation of service till the date of reinstatement of the 5^th respondent teacher, did not permit a continuation of the disciplinary proceedings that had been initiated against the 5^th respondent in 2013. It is pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the wake of several complaints made by many of the teachers in the same institution and because of the erratic and errant behaviour of the 5^th respondent.

¶37

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.George Abraham, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent Sri.S.Sujin as also the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the official respondents of the State.

¶38

On a consideration of the rival submission and taking note of the efflux of time, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in the writ appeal. We make it clear, however, that the dismissal of

¶39

W A.No.1521 of 2021

¶40

¶41

the this appeal shall not stand in the way of the appellant initiating any fresh disciplinary action in accordance with law against the 5^th respondent in the event of any future misconduct occasioned by the 5^th respondent.

¶42

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

MOHAMMED NIAS.C.P., JUDGE

¶47

dlk/24.11.2021

The Manager, C.a.Higher Secondary School, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, C.a.Higher Secondary School, v. 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

State of Kerala Vs Shylaja K. Unnithan

Alif Anjumon Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Aby Paul Vs the Corporate Manager

Sree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College Vs Dr. Tara.L

Shree Vidhyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College Vs Dr.Tara L.

The Vice Principal, Vs the Admission Supervisory