Remanded

Bindhu.S.S, v. Principal Secretary

Kerala HC15 Jan 2021WP(C)/11768/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought approval of her service from 2006-2007, which was rejected due to a government ban. The Court held that service should be approved under a subsequent Government Order lifting the ban but left her future Rule 51A claim open.

What did the court decide?

Set aside prior rejection order; directed Government Secretary to reconsider service approval for 2006-2007 and rule on it within three months.

Bindhu.S.S, Vs Principal Secretary — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BINDHU.S.S, AGED 41, D/O. SARASWATHI AMMA, MUNDAPLAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, AYOORKONAM, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (NORTH), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (NORTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

5 CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF LUTHERAN SCHOOLS, INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SYNOD, CALVARY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶15

6 REV.MOHANAN, CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF LUTHERAN SCHOOLS, INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SYNOD, CALVARY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

¶16

7 HEADMASTER, CONCORDIA LUTHERAN UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. BY ADV.SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 15th day of January 2021

¶22

The petitioner says that she was

¶23

originally appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant (U.P.S.A), in Concordia Lutheran Upper Primary School, Peroorkada -

¶24

of which the 6^th respondent is the Manager - in a maternity leave vacancy for the period from 01.06.2005 to 13.10.2005.

¶25

She says that this period has been approved and that she was subsequently

¶26

appointed by the Manager in an additional division vacancy from 05.06.2006 to

¶27

31.05.2007; however, approval for the same has been rejected through Ext.P6 by the 4^th respondent - Assistant Educational Officer

¶28

solely for the reason that there was ban of

¶29

appointment imposed by the Government, through its order No.G.O(P) No.317/85/G.Edn

¶30

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶31

¶32

dated 17.08.2005. The petitioner concedes

¶33

that the challenge to Ext.P6 ended against her in Ext.P7 in the year 2013 and that she

¶34

had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.30920/2014 seeking the claim of Rule 51A claimant for future vacancies which culminated in Ext.P8 judgment.

¶35

After saying as afore, the

¶36

petitioner through her learned counsel - Sri.R.T.Pradeep concedes that she had

¶37

issued Ext.P9 letter to the Manager relinquishing her claim under Rule 51A Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules,

¶38

but asserts that this was done on account of the pressure and influence brought on her by the Corporate Manager who was

¶39

ordained as pries t of repute . The

¶40

petitioner says that, however, she was unable to obtain a better employment

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶43

thereafter and therefore, that she is still

¶44

entitled to the benefit under Rule 51A, based on her 2^nd spell of service from 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2007. She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be allowed, quashing Exts.P6 and P7; with a consequential direction to the respondents

¶45

to approve her appointment between 05.06.2006 and 31.05.2007. She also prays that the Manager be directed to appoint her

¶46

to a vacancy which is available in the year 2019-2020, construing her as a Rule 51A claimant.

¶47

submissions of the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that the petitioner's contentions

¶48

cannot be acceded to at all because; for one, Ext.P7 was issued as early as in the

¶49

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶50

¶51

year 2013, while she has chosen to challenge it only six years later, in the year 2019 by filing this writ petition; and

¶52

for the second, she cannot claim to be a Rule 51A claimant, after she had issued Ext.P9 letter relinquishing such status as

¶53

early as on 27.04.2014. He, therefore,

¶54

prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶55

I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader, because it is indubitable that the orders challenged by the petitioner are of the years 2007 and

¶56

2013 respectively. Further, her claim, edificed on Rule 51A Chapter XIV of the KER, cannot also be affirmed by this Court at this time, because evidently, she has

¶57

issued Ext.P9 relinquishing such claim as early as in the year 2014, but has never

¶58

¶59

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶60

chosen to retract from it or to challenge it appropriately.

¶61

Normally, therefore, this Court

¶62

would not have been persuaded to consider any of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, but taking note of the fact that her service between 05/06/2006 and 31/05/2007 has been denied approval solely

¶63

because the Government had ordered ban of appointments during that period, I am of the opinion that she should be given the lenitude of having the said services approved, if she is otherwise eligible, on the strength of the subsequent Government Order, namely G.O(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12/01/2010, especially since this order is designed to help teachers like the petitioner whose approvals were held up only on account of the ban ordered by the

¶64

¶65

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶66

Government.

¶67

even if the petitioner is granted approval in terms of the directions above, her claim under Rule 51A is left open to be decided

¶68

at appropriate stage, if she stakes claim for further appointment under the same management; and all her contentions and that of the Government are left open to be pursued by them for such purpose.

¶69

propose to enter into the merits of the afore contentions affirmatively at this stage, because it is conjectural as to whether the petitioner will be offered a

¶70

further appointment by the Corporate Manager or whether she will be able to

¶71

secure such on account of the fact that she

¶72

has now, admittedly, become overaged for

¶73

¶74

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶75

seeking a fresh appointment.

¶76

Resultantly and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the competent Secretary of the Government

¶77

to reconsider the approval of the petitioner for the period between

¶78

05/06/2006 and 31/05/2007 under the mandate of G.O(P)No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12/01/2010, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her as also the Corporate Manager

¶79

either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an

¶80

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously

¶81

as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶82

Needless to say, while the afore

¶83

exercise is completed, the Secretary of the

¶84

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶85

¶86

Government will be entitled to deem that the Corporate Manager has executed a bond in terms of the afore mentioned Government Order, subject to his version.

¶87

At this time Shri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed that his client's contention as regards future appointment to the School be allowed to be pursued, subject to the afore decision.

¶88

It is needless to say that if the

¶89

petitioner intends to do so, she shall be at liberty, but her fresh appointment and approval will be subject to the decision of the Manager and the Competent Educational Authorities, particularly in the light of Ext.P9 relinquishment letter.

¶90

Sd/-

¶91

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶92

MC& akv/22.1.2021

¶93

WP(C).No.11768 OF 2019(U)

¶94

¶95

APPENDIX

¶96

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶97

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 1- 6-2005 BY WHICH PETITIONER IS APPOINTED AS U.P.S.A BY 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 1410-2005 EXTENDING THE TENURE OF APPOINTMENT FROM 14-10-2005 TO 31-5-2006 EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 25-52012 WHICH IS ENDORSED IN THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01-06-2005 EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 5-62006 BY WHICH PETITIONER IS APPOINTED AS U.P.S.A IN AN ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL DIVISION VACANCY EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 1811-2006 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2006-2007 WITH RESPECT TO CONCORDIA LUTHERAN UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEROORKADA EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28-2-2007 BY WHICH THE APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER AS U.P.S.A IN THE ADDITIONAL DIVISION VACANCY WAS REJECTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13-6-2013 BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT UPHELD EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20-11-2014 IN WP(C) NO. 30920/2014 EXHIBIT P9 THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27-10-2014 RELINQUISHING RULE 51A CLAIM BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11-01-2017 BY WHICH 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSED THE RELINQUISHMENT OF RULE 51 A CLAIM OF PETITIONER.

Bindhu.S.S, v. Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindhu.S.S, v. Principal Secretary

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

P.v.Venugopal Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Vs State of Kerala

Anish J. Vs the Kerala Livestock Development Board Limited

Jose Joseph Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Neethu Krishna, Vs the Principal, Government Law College

P.T.Ravindran Vs the Chief Medical Officer