Disposed

M.Shijith v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2021WP(C)/17779/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a teacher seeking regularisation of appointment. Court dismissed direct claim for regularisation pending compliance with prior judgment. Court directed petitioner to file fresh representation while directing Government to consider it expeditiously ensuring hearing and parity with similarly placed teachers.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation within ten days. Government directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within two months ensuring hearing.

M.Shijith Vs Government of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

M.SHIJITH

AGED 50 YEARS

S/O.N.ANANTHAN, CRAFT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT UP SCHOOL, CHETTIYAMPARAMBU, KELEKAM, IRITTY, KANNUR-670 674

¶12

BY ADV D.ANIL KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶15

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,

¶16

JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶17

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR-670 002

¶18

4 MANAGER

¶19

MUP SCHOOL, VENGAD P.O., KANNUR-670 612

¶20

SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner states that he was appointed as a Craft Teacher in the MUP School, Vengad, an aided school, under the management of the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 order. Though the appointment was made on a vacancy, his appointment was not approved.

¶26

According to the petitioner, in the year 2012, the Government came out with Ext.P2 order wherein the name of the petitioner was included in the teachers package. He started working as a Cluster Coordinator on the strength of the same. Later, by Ext.P3 order dated 04.10.2012, the Government took a decision to sanction the pooling of specialist teachers working in the Government Schools and also the specialist teachers who were working against the non-sanctioned posts. On the strength of the said order, the appointment of 54 physical education teachers who were similarly placed as the petitioner was regularised. On coming to know about the regularisation of the aforesaid teachers, several teachers similarly placed as the petitioner herein, approached the Government seeking regularisation.

¶27

The petitioner states that he, along with similarly placed teachers, submitted representations before the Government. When no action was taken, they approached this Court and by Ext.P7 judgment dated 16.03.2020, this Court had directed the Government to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner and others within a period of eight weeks. While so,

¶28

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

Ext.P8 Government Order was passed on 26.02.2021 as per which it was ordered that the appointment of specialist teachers like the petitioner herein shall be regularised with effect from 04.10.2012. Though the claim of the petitioner was that his appointment ought to have been regularised with effect from 5.6.2000, despite the Government order, his appointment was not regularised even from 4.10.2012.

¶31

Later, in purported compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the Government, instead of passing the order, passed the mantle to the District Educational Officer and the said authority was asked to take the decision. This, according to the petitioner, is against the directions issued by this Court. He contends that no orders have been passed to date.

¶32

The petitioner states that Exts.P12 and P13 orders were later passed in respect of the teachers similarly placed as the petitioner herein. The contention of the petitioner is that the benefit of the orders granted to the teachers as per Exts.P12 and P13 should have been extended to him as well. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶33

i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibit P9 order so far it is against the petitioner after calling for the records leading to the same;

¶34

ii) issue a writ of declaration, declaring the appointment of the petitioner as regular with effect from 05.06.2000 and the petitioner be paid all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

¶35

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

I have heard Sri. D. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

Having considered the submissions, it appears that this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.8044/2020 had directed the Government to take up the representation submitted by the petitioner and others and to take a decision within 8 weeks. However, instead of complying with the directives, the Government has passed Ext.P9 order directing the District Educational Officer, Kannur to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner and others. I find that insofar as certain Seetha Devi is concerned, who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8044/2020, the Assistant Educational Officer issued proceedings granting approval however, it was with effect from 4.10.2012. This Court by Ext.P10 interim order had directed the Government to reconsider the issue and later, by judgment dated 12.8.2021, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Government to take a decision on Ext.P13. I also find that Ext.P12 and P13 orders have been passed by the Government granting reliefs in respect of persons who are similarly placed as the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader has submitted before this Court that the District Educational Officer, Thalassery has not passed any orders pursuant to Ext.P9 order passed by the Government dated 31.05.2021.

¶39

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions. Resultantly, there will be a direction to the

¶40

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

petitioner to file a fresh representation narrating all facts and circumstances before the 1st respondent within a period of ten days from today. If such a representation is filed, the 1st respondent shall take up the same and pass appropriate orders, as per procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law, taking note of Exts.P12 and P13 orders passed in favour of persons similarly placed as the petitioner. The 1st respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent which may either be physically or through video conferencing. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

¶48

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17779/2021

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT
	ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MANAGER DATED 5.6.2000.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.116/2012/G.EDN DATED 12.4.2012
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.312/12/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2012
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR DATED 13.6.2013
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT G.O.NO.3999/2019/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2019 IN FAVOUR OF SMT. P.RANJINI ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.2.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.8044/2020
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.130/2021/G.EDN DATED 26.2.2021
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.NO.2869/2021/G.EDN DATED 31.5.2021
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.15592/2021 DATED 4.8.2021
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.15592/2021 DATED 12.8.2021
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

¶53

WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021

¶54

¶55

G.O.NO.3495/2019/G.EDN DATED 2.9.2019

¶56

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.108/2001/G.EDN DATED 23.3.2001 IN RESPECT OF 29 NEEDLE TEACHERS.

¶57

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶58

NIL

M.Shijith v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Shijith v. Government 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

Princy T. F. Vs State of Kerala

Laxmi Megan Speciality Health Care Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

Bengara Jyothi P.R. Vs the State of Kerala

Binu Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Sona C M Vs State of Kerala