Smitha v. Vs State of Kerala
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition challenging rejection of UPST appointment approval from initial date. Single Judge set aside order, holding pending SLP cannot bar benefits; directed reconsideration of petition and approval based on Suma Devi judgment.
What did the court decide?
Set aside Ext.P8 order; directed 1st respondent to reconsider revision petition and pass fresh orders within three months, noting the manager is deemed to have executed the bond.
What the court decided
WP(C) NO. 11253 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11253 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SMITHA V. AGED 44 YEARS W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, UPSA, ASMM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALATHUR, RESIDING AT DEVI NANDANAM, BEHIND ASMM HIGH SCHOOL ALATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
- 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a pending Supreme Court challenge against a Government Order can be a ground to deny consequential benefits to a teacher appointed during the ban period.
Whether the manager's failure to execute a bond can be deemed executed when the appointment was made during the ban period.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Smitha V.
- respondent
State of Kerala
- respondent
Director of Education
- respondent
Deputy Director of Education
- respondent
District Educational Officer, Sultanpet
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court