Disposed

Jesnet C. Mathew, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2021WP(C)/20913/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an UPST teacher, sought directions for expeditious consideration of her revision petition regarding non-continuous appointment approval. The Court disposed of the plea at the admission stage by directing the respondent to consider the petition within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the revision petition within three months.

Jesnet C. Mathew, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 12TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JESNET C. MATHEW, AGED 34 YEARS

¶8

W/O.JOHNY, NOW WORKING AS UPST, ST.GEORGE UPS, KALLANICKAL, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 581.

¶9

BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 005.

¶13

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584.

¶14

4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584.

¶15

5 CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691.

¶16

SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP

¶17

WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner states that she is presently working as UPST at St.George UPS, Kallanickal, Thodupuzha. She was appointed with effect from 1.6.2017 on a regular basis till the vacancy exists. According to the petitioner, she was originally appointed as UPST on 1.6.2015 in a leave vacancy on account of the leave sanctioned to one Philipkutty, UPSA, from 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2017. As is evident from Ext.P3, the appointment was approved on scale of pay basis from 1.6.2015 to 31.3.2016. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the non granting of continuous approval from 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2017. According to the petitioner, she is a 51A claimant and she has preference over protected teachers. Narrating all these aspects, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent. Being aggrieved by the delay in consideration of the revision petition, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

¶24

Sri. Paulson Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition in an expeditious manner with due notice.

¶25

WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021 4

¶26

I have heard Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader, who submitted that there is no impediment in considering the said request.

¶27

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

¶28

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶29

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I

¶30

am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶31

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative and the Manager.

¶32

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.

¶33

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition

¶34

WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further

¶37

action.

¶38

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶41

sru

¶42

WP(C) NO. 20913 OF 2021 6

¶43

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.C/15050/2019 DATED 25.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE AEO, THODUPUZHA.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTIONING ORDER NO.443/2016/G.EDN. DATED 04.02.2016.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2015 IN LEAVE VACANCY.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER W.E.F. 01.06.2016 TO 31.03.2017 IN LEAVE VACANCY.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.C/2247/2016/K.DIS DATED 27.07.2017.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO WITH NO.B1/5981/2018 DATED 25.04.2019 REJECTING THE APPEAL.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 31.08.2021.

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Jesnet C. Mathew, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jesnet C. Mathew, 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

Aseena P Vs State of Kerala

P.J. John., Vs State of Kerala

Amrutham M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shafi, Vs v.a.Sahadevan

The Charter School Parents Association Vs State of Kerala

Sathi P. Vs a. Shajahan IAS