Disposed

Ranjitha v., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2021WP(C)/14842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Director of Public Instructions to dispose of the petitioner's pending revision petition expeditiously within three months, following the principles in State of Kerala v. Nadeera, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to dispose of pending revision petition within three months after hearing the petitioner.

Ranjitha v., Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 14842 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14842 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RANJITHA V., UPST, AMUP SCHOOL, VADAKKANGARA, PAYYANAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676122.

¶9

BY ADVS. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH K.S.ROCKEY TONY AUGUSTINE GEORGE RENOY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676122.

¶13

3 THE MANAGER, AMUP SCHOOL, VADAKKANGARA, PAYYANAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676122.

¶14

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 14842 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA at the AMUP School, Vadakkangara, an aided school managed by the 3rd respondent in a retirement vacancy on 06/06/2006. The appointment was approved by the AEO on 21/07/2007 as per Exhibit P1 proceedings. Petitioner contends that later the DDE directed the AEO to modify and limit the approval of the appointment of the petitioner only with effect from 11/01/2007 instead of 06/06/2006 since the manager had appointed a protected hand only on 11/01/2007. In compliance with the directions, the AEO issued Exhibit P2 modifying and limiting the approval of the appointment of the petitioner.

¶20

Though the petitioner as well as the manager challenged the opposite order, the same was rejected by Exhibit P5 order. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained in the light of the law laid

¶21

down by this Court in State of Kerala v. Nadeera (2013(2) KLT 88).

¶22

It is contended that challenging the impugned orders the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P6 revision petition before the 1st respondent which is stated to be pending. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

¶23

Heard Sri. Augustine Joseph and the learned Government Pleader.

¶24

In view of the limited prayer sought by the petitioner, the notice

¶25

WP(C) NO. 14842 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶29

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶30

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 revision petition in the light of the law laid down in State of Kerala v. Nadeera [2013(2) KLT 88], after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative as well as the Manager.

¶31

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

¶32

event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶34

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

IAP

¶39

WP(C) NO. 14842 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14842/2021

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 06/06/2006 ALONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF APPROVAL FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/01/2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 06/02/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE MANGER DATED 05/06/2011. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/03/2012 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/07/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶45

NIL

Ranjitha v., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjitha v., 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

V.Raveendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Sanumon K.B., Vs the State of Kerala

Noufal Salam Vs S. Rajendran

Bushrabi Ap Vs State of Kerala

Girija Devi E Vs State of Kerala