Disposed

Rashmi M.C. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2021WP(C)/1410/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning teacher appointment retroversity, the High Court directed the Government to consider the petitioner's revision petition within three months, ordering notice to relevant respondents and allowing hearing via video conferencing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's revision petition (Exhibit P8) within three months, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 5, 6, and 7.

Rashmi M.C. Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1410 OF 2021(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RASHMI M.C. AGED 51 YEARS, WIFE OF S.PRAMOD, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NATURAL SCIENCE), RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOKERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 692. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION

¶11

JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶13

KANNUR - 670002.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101.

¶15

5 THE MANAGER, RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOKERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 692.

¶16

6 THE PRINCIPAL, RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOKERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 692.

¶17

7 SMT.VIGINA R. HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NATURAL SCIENCE), RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOKERI, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 692.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

GP BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.1410 OF 2021(A)

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

¶26

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment i.e.01.07.2011.

¶27

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P7 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit.”

¶28

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed as H.S.A (Natural Science) on 01.07.2011. Her appointment was approved only from 01.10.2011. Though the petitioner preferred a revision against the non approval of her appointment from 01.07.2011, the revision was rejected by Ext.P5. However, thereafter, the appointment of a junior of the

¶30

WP(C).No.1410 OF 2021(A)

¶31

¶32

petitioner as H.S.A (Natural Science) w.e.f 12.09.2011 has been approved by Ext.P6. The petitioner has now approached the Government as against Ext.P6 as also the rejection of approval for her appointment w.e.f 01.07.2011 by preferring Ext.P8 revision petition.

¶33

Having heard the learned Government Pleader also and in view of the fact that a person appointed after the petitioner's appointment from 01.07.2011 has been granted approval w.e.f 12.09.2011, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's claim as projected in Ext.P8 is also liable to be considered in accordance with law.

¶34

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P8 revision petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the Government. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 revision petition preferred by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner, respondents 5, 6 and 7 and to pass orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made

¶35

WP(C).No.1410 OF 2021(A)

¶36

¶37

clear that the hearing can be conducted through any appropriate means including by video conferencing.

¶38

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

Bng/02.02.2021

WP(C).No.1410 OF 2021(A)

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01/07/2011. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM4/51514/2013/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 26/02/2014 OF THE DIRECTOR.

¶48

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9708/A2/2015/G.EDN. DATED 16/10/2015 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G.EDN.JE/182/2017/G.EDN. DATED 05/03/2018 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.868/2020/G.EDN. DATED 19/02/2020 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶49

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM4/6529/2019/K.DIS. DATED 08/11/2019 OF THE DIRECTOR.

¶50

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 30/11/2020.

¶51

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 19.01.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT

Rashmi M.C. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi M.C. 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

Shiny Saji (Sr NO.56330) Vs Indian Bank

Kavalakkat Constructions, Vs a. Shivachander

Rohini K. Vs State of Kerala

Shiji C.R. Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council (Keralam)

Biju Varughese Vs Bank of Baroda

Jismy Antony, Vs the University of Calicut