Allowed

Glipsy a D'Silva v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2021WP(C)/13105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges rejection of appointment approval. Court holds that identical benefits granted to others necessitate reconsideration, setting aside the order and directing the State to deeming bond submission per G.O. 12.01.2010 within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P11 set aside; respondent directed to reconsider approval deeming bond submission per G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn dated 12.01.2010 within two months.

Glipsy a D'Silva Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 13105 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 13105 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

GLIPSY A D'SILVA AGED 38 YEARS

¶10

WIFE OF PRAVEEN GEORGE, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MAR SEVERIUS U.P.SCHOOL, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680308.

¶11

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THRISSUR AT AYYANTHOLE-680003.

¶16

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680121.

¶17

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307.

¶18

6 THE MANAGER MAR SEVERIUS U.P.SCHOOL, KORATTY-680308, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

7 THE HEADMASTER MAR SEVERIUS U.P.SCHOOL, KORATTY-680308, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. NISHA BOSE-SR. G.P.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 13105 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 Government Order and seeks a reconsideration of the issue of approval of the petitioner's appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner had been appointed against an additional division vacancy on 06.06.2007 and the appointment was approved only in the teachers package from 01.06.2011. It is submitted that with regard to the period from 06.06.2007 to 31.05.2011 also, the petitioner is entitled to approval deeming that the manager has submitted the bond in terms of the G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. It is submitted that this Court had issued such directions to the Government to deem that the bond has been duly executed by the manager even in cases where matters are pending before the Apex Court raising challenges to the deeming provision by the managers. Ext.P12 order in an identical case where the benefits has been granted is also produced.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P10 judgment did not direct the deeming of the submission of the bond by the manager, which is the reason why Ext.P11 order has been passed specifically stating that since there is no deeming directed by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to approval of appointment.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 13105 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

In view of the fact that identically situated teachers have been granted the benefit of approval of appointment for the periods before 01.06.2011 deeming that the managers have submitted the bond, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner's case alone on the ground that there is no deeming directed in Ext.P10 judgment is unsustainable. This is more so in view of the binding judgments of this Court in earlier cases as well as orders passed by the Government in identical cases.

¶30

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P11 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the issue deeming that the manager has submitted the bond in terms of G.O.(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 13105 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13105/2021

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.06.2007.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.1876/07 DATED 23.11.2017 OF THE AEO, CHALAKUDY.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DEO BY THE MANAGER DATED 18.12.2007.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.C.1403/2010/D.DIS. DATED 04.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE AEO, CHALAKKUDY.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-878/2011 DATED 17.09.2011 OF THE AEO CHALAKKUDY (WITH TYPED COPY OF 2ND PAGE).
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RA(2)/10654/12/DPI/ K.DIS. DATED 26.05.2012 OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.07.2017.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.06.2019.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.14323/2020 DATED 15.07.2020.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.2886/2021/G.EDN. DATED 31.05.2021.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT.)NO.4708/2019/G.EDN. DATED 07.11.2019.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Glipsy a D'Silva v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glipsy a D'Silva 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Unnikrishnan Vs University of Calicut

Hindustan College of Pharmacy Vs State of Kerala

Smitha P. Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sreepathi.E. Vs the State of Kerala

A.Isha Beevi Vs K.B.Jayakumar

K.Kannan Vs S.Venkatesapathy IAS