The Court issued directions to the respondent to expeditiously consider the petitioner's revision petition regarding her appointment, afford her a hearing opportunity, and pass orders within three months.
Direction to respondent to consider revision petition, afford hearing, and pass orders within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
AMRUTHAM M.S., AGED 48 YEARS, HST, MMET HS, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM 676 517.
BY ADVS. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH K.S.ROCKEY TONY AUGUSTINE GEORGE RENOY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that while she was working as UPSA in the MMET HS, Melmuri, an aided school under the management of the 3rd respondent, she was promoted and appointed on 01.06.2009 as an HST in a Leave Without Allowance Vacancy. She contends that she is entitled to the approval of her service as HST from 01.06.2009 to 16.11.2009. Raising her contentions, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Exhibit-P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions:
petitioner submitted that the only request is for a direction to the 1st respondent to expeditiously consider and take a decision on Ext.P7.
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:
a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,
consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, as per
WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021 3
procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law. An opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, shall be afforded to the petitioner or her authorised representative, the Manager as well as affected parties, if any.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date
of production of a copy of this judgment.
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.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
DSV
WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021 4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15958/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009 OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.11.2009. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.22443/A2/2013/G.EDN DATED 18.12.2013. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.27503/2014. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.3.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.37492/2016. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.7.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.7.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the respondent to consider and decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner regarding her appointment.
Whether to direct the respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Whether to issue a time-bound direction for the disposal of the petition by the respondent.
Amrutham M.S.
State of Kerala
District Education Officer, Down Hill
Manager, MMET HS, Melmuri
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
