Disposed

Joelin Joseph Mampilly v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Sept 2021WP(C)/17997/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the District Educational Officer to consider the petitioner's representation regarding her appointment as UPST affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties and passing orders within two months without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to consider petitioner's representation after hearing parties and pass orders within two months.

Joelin Joseph Mampilly Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 17997 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17997 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOELIN JOSEPH MAMPILLY AGED 28 YEARS W/O SABIN THOMAS, UPST, ST. GEORGES HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 024, RESIDING AT NEREVEETTIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKKARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-21.

¶8

BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH SIDHARTH SUDHEER GOURI BALAGOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

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

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶13

4 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ST. GEORGE FORANE CHURCH, EDAPPALLY-682 024.

¶14

SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP

¶15

WP(C) NO. 17997 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 17997 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Instance writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as UPST in the light of Ext.P9 judgment;

¶23

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P10 representation filed by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P9 judgment and pass orders accordingly forthwith;

¶24

iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have her appointment as UPST approved in the light of Ext.P9 judgment;

¶25

iv) Declare that the action of the 3rd respondent in not approving the appointment of the petitioner as UPST on the ground the petitioner has not studied Malayalam as a subject is absolutely illegal, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;”

¶26

When this matter was taken up for consideration, Sri.K.R.Ganesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the limited request of the petitioner is for expeditious consideration of Exhibit-P10 representation in the light of Exhibit-P9 judgment.

¶27

I have heard Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader. In view of the nature of order that I propose to pass, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶29

WP(C) NO. 17997 OF 2021

¶30

¶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) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

¶33

made in the representation, the 3rd respondent is directed to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on ExhibitP10 representation in the light of Exhibit-P9 judgment, as per procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative and the 4th respondent.

¶34

b) Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

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.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

DSV

¶41

WP(C) NO. 17997 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17997/2021

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CBSE
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PLUS TWO CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BA DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI DATED 2.3.2016
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 28.2.2017
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL PROFORMA SENT TO THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.8.2021 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, APPOINTING HER AS UPST
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT MANAGER ASKING SOME QUERIES REGARDING APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS UPST
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2020 IN WPC NO 13564/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.8.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS EXHI	BITS:NIL

Joelin Joseph Mampilly v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joelin Joseph Mampilly 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.D.Vincy Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Kunhammad Vs the District Educational Officer Thalassery

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

Gireesh P Vs Pramod M.C

Shubha K.B Vs State of Kerala

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