Disposed

Jayalakshmi v., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2021WP(C)/17833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Government General Education Department to expeditiously hear the petitioner's revision petition regarding her rejected promotion appointment, mandating a hearing opportunity and a decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the revision petition within three months, affording the petitioner a hearing.

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

¶1

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

JAYALAKSHMI V., AGED 47 YEARS, WIFE OF MADHUKUMAR, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NATURAL SCIENCE), V V HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THAMARAKKULAM P.O., CHARUMMOODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 505, (RESIDING AT THURUTHYIL DEVIPRIYA, KARIMULACKAL, P.O. KOMALLOOR , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 505.

¶10

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 101.

¶16

5 THE MANAGER, V V HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THAMARAKKULAM P.O. CHARUMMOODU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 505.

¶17

SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner states that she commenced continuous approved service as UPST from 5.6.2006 onwards against a regular vacancy in the VV Higher Secondary School, Thamarakkulam, an aided school, under the management of the 5th respondent as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. As she was the senior most Rule 43 claimant, she was promoted and appointed as HST (NS) from 15.7.2021 onwards against the retirement vacancy of Smt.M.R.Anitha who retired on 31.3.2020. However, her appointment was rejected by the DEO, Mavelikkara as per order dated 1.8.2021 on the ground that the appointee did not possess B.Ed. in the concerned subject. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the DEO cannot be sustained. Being aggrieved, she is stated to have preferred Ext.P11 revision petition before the Government. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

¶23

“i) call for the records relating to Exhibits-P5, P6 and P7 and set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶24

ii) declare that Exhibit-P4 appointment by promotion of the petitioner as HST(NS) from 15.07.2021 is legally valid and sustainable.

¶25

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent DEO to grant

¶26

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

approval to Exhibit-P4 appointment as HST(NS) from 15.07.2021 onwards.

¶29

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit-P11 revision petition within a time frame after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.”

¶30

Sri. M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 revision petition within a time frame with due notice.

¶31

In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondent is dispensed with.

¶32

Heard the learned Government Pleader who submits that the

¶33

revision petition can be heard on its merits and orders shall be passed within a period of three months.

¶34

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

¶35

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶36

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

¶37

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 revision

¶38

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

petition, as per 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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

DSV

¶48

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17833/2021

¶51

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS :

¶52

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DAED 05.06.2006. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.SC. CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03.04.2000. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.05.2002. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.07.2021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5/26520/2021 DATED 01.08.2021 OF THE DEO, MAVELIKKARA. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. P NO. 220/2005/G.EDN. DATED 19.07.2005 OF THE GOVT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 165/2008/G.EDN. DATED 19.09.2008 OF THE GOVT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2003 KHC 158 DECIDED ON 21.03.2002. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 724/2014 DATED 02.06.2014. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009 KHC 1287 DECIDED ON 12.11.2009. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 16/08/2021. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 424/2020/G.EDN. DATED 22.01.2020 OF THE GOVT.

¶53

WP(C) NO. 17833 OF 2021

¶54

¶55

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 135/2017 DATED 07.08.2017. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 444/2018/G.EDN. DATED 27.01.2018 OF THE GOVT.

¶56

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Jayalakshmi v., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi v., 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinu v Mathew, Vs the State of Kerala

Banazir.R Vs State of Kerala

Nisha B. Anandan Vs the State of Kerala

T.D.Vincy Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Kunhammad Vs the District Educational Officer Thalassery

A.K.Chandran Vs K.P.Aswini Kumar