Disposed

Nisha B. Anandan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/15346/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a teacher appointed as Headmistress against the District Educational Officer for refusing to grant approval. The High Court directed the officer to expedite the consideration of the petitioner's appeal and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the appeal on merits, afford hearing opportunity, and pass orders within three months.

Nisha B. Anandan Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

NISHA B. ANANDAN, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O BINDU, HEADMISTRESS, SNVUP SCHOOL, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

¶14

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

¶15

5 THE MANAGER,

¶16

SNVUP SCHOOL, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 673.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that she commenced her service as a Primary Teacher in the SNV UP School, Valiyakulam, an aided school, under the management of the 5th respondent from 02.06.2003 onwards. However, due to the reduction of the post, she was retrenched from service on 15.07.2008. Later, she was included in the “Teachers Package” and deployed in SSA as CRC Co-ordinator from 20.06.2012. According to the petitioner, from 10.06.2016, she was repatriated to the parent school. While so, she was promoted as Headmistress from 01.06.2020 onwards and she is continuing to discharge the duties as Headmistress. Her grievance concerns the refusal on the part of the AEO to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as headmistress. Narrating her grievance and seeking redressal she has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 3rd respondent. It is in the above background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

¶25

While the writ petition was pending consideration, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the DEO, Pathanamthitta being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the solitary request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal on its merits and take a decision in an expeditious manner.

¶29

Heard the learned Government Pleader and I have considered the submissions. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondent is dispensed with.

¶30

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶31

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:

¶32

a) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 appeal, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative as well 5th respondent and other affected parties, if any.

¶33

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

¶34

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021 5

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2021 6

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15346/2021

¶44

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶45

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 01.06.2020
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 23.10.2020	ORDER NO.B/4139/2020 OF THE AEO
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BEFORE THE DEO D MANAGER	APPEAL PETITION FILED ATED 10.11.2020 BY THE
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER D	CERTIFICATE OF KERS OF ATED 02.07.2010
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TEST HIGHER OF T	CERTIFICATE OF ACCOUNT HE PETITIONER 02.07.2010
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER (ACCO 02.07.2010	CERTIFICATE OF THE UNT TEST LOWER) DATED
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE 19.01.2021 FILED THE GOVERNMENT (	APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE WITH OUT EXHIBITS).

¶46

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

Nisha B. Anandan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha B. Anandan 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

K.S.Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Nalini.P Vs Jerome P.Thomas

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala

Tinu v Mathew, Vs the State of Kerala

Banazir.R Vs State of Kerala

Mini Jose, Vs State of Kerala