Disposed

Seena P. v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Sept 2021WP(C)/20096/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition seeking regularisation and consequential benefits for a teacher similarly placed to others who received government orders extending benefits to physical education teachers, directing a fresh representation and decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file fresh representation; direction to 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders within two months after hearing parties.

Seena P. Vs Government of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 20096 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 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SEENA P. AGED 54 YEARS W/O.GIRISHWARAN PV., NEEDLE WORK TEACHER, GMUP SCHOOL, RAMANTHALI P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR 670 308

¶10

BY ADV D.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR DISTRICT, THAVAKKARA P.O., KANNUR PIN 670 002

¶14

3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 308

¶15

4 MANAGER JANAKI MEMORIAL U.P. SCHOOL, CHERUPUZHA, KUNHIMANGALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 309

¶16

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner states that she was appointed as a Needle work teacher in the Janaki Memorial UP School, Cherupuzha, an aided school, under the management of the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 order. Though the appointment was made on a retirement vacancy, her appointment was not approved.

¶22

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. She 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.

¶23

The petitioner states that she, 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

¶24

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

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, 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

The petitioner states that Exts.P11 and P12 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.P11 and P12 should have been extended to her as well. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶29

i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibits P8, P9 and P10 orders to the extent it is against the claim of petitioner after calling for the records leading to the same.

¶30

ii) issue a writ of declaration, declaring the appointment of

¶31

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

petitioner be approved with effect from 25.9.1990 (the initial date of appointment as per Exhibit P1) as regular and the petitioner be paid all consequential benefits.

¶34

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

¶35

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.P10 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.P14 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.P11 and P12 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, Kannur has not passed any orders pursuant to Ext.P10 order passed by the Government dated 31.05.2021.

¶36

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

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 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.P11 and P12 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.

¶39

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶42

sru

¶43

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MANAGER DATED 25.9.1990
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 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF KANNUR DATED 13.6.2013 POOLING AND APPOINTING TEACHERS TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.NO.3999/2019/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2019 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SMT. RENJINI
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF GENERAL EDUCATION DATED NIL
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.NO.130/2021/G.EDN DATED 26.2.2021
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.8.2021
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.NO.2869/2021/G.EDN DATED 31.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.NO.3495/2019/G.EDN DATED 2.9.2019 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF 44 PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS FROM THEIR APPOINTMENT
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OIF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO.108/2001/G.EDN DATED 23.3.2001
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2021

¶48

WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021 7

¶49

IN W.P.(C) NO.17779/2021

¶50

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 4.9.2021 IN W.P.C NO.15592/2021

¶51

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.15592/2021

¶52

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Seena P. v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seena P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fr. Joseph E.J., Vs the State of Kerala

Fr. Somy Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

P.Muhammed Shafi Vs the State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Indira S., Vs State of Kerala