Allowed

Aparna Mohan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2021WP(C)/2244/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ruled that a statutory right to compassionate appointment under the Kerala Education Rules cannot be negated by an administrative circular. The court quashed the government order rejecting the petitioner's appointment and directed reconsideration while affording an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 Government Order set aside and Government directed to reconsider the petitioner's case after affording an opportunity of being heard, within three months.

Aparna Mohan Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.2244 OF 2020(E)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

APARNA MOHAN, KANJIRAPPARA NALUKETTU, PRAKKANAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689643.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (N) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA.P.O., PIN-683645.

¶12

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHENCHERY, THEKKEMALA.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-695654.

¶13

5 THE MANAGER, M.G.U.P. SCHOOL, PRAKKANAM, PRAKKANAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-683643.

¶14

R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 2244/20

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she was appointed as an Office Attendant in the services of MGUP

¶20

School, Prakkanam, Pathanamthitta, on

¶21

compassionate grounds, consequent to the death of her mother, who unfortunately died in harness while working as an Upper Primary School Assistant. She says that, however, the 4^th respondent has rejected her proposal for approval solely on the ground that since the school is an 'uneconomic' one, the vacancy could have been filled up only on daily wage basis and not by appointing a permanent staff.

¶22

The petitioner says that the Manager of the School, therefore, preferred statutory appeals and revisions before the hierarchy of Authorities under the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) but that all of them have been rejected, finally culminating in Ext.P9 order of the Government, wherein, it has been

¶23

WPC 2244/20

¶24

¶25

reiterated that since the School is an 'uneconomic' one - as per the Government Circular, namely Ext.P3 - only a person on daily wages could have been appointed. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 circular and

¶26

Ext.P9 Government Order be set aside and the competent Educational Authorities be directed to grant approval to her appointment.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.V.B.Premachandran, added to the above by saying that, consequent to the death of his client's mother, their family plunged into

¶28

penury because her father is unemployed and

¶29

she is the only child eligible for appointment. He submitted that, in fact, as is evident from Ext.P13, appointment of a similarly placed person, namely a certain Smt.M.K.Jancy, was approved with effect from 04.06.2002 as a special case on humanitarian ground and that his client is also entitled to

¶30

WPC 2244/20

¶31

¶32

such benefit, taking note of her extenuating circumstances. He, therefore, prayed that this

¶33

Writ Petition be allowed.

¶34

– 4. Sri.P.M.Manoj learned Senior

¶35

Government Pleader, submitted that Government

¶36

had no other option but to issue Ext.P9 order since they are bound by Ext.P3 Circular, which mandates that in the case of 'uneconomic' schools, vacancies can be filled up only on daily wage basis. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶37

When I consider the afore submissions

¶38

and go through the materials available on

¶39

record, it is without doubt that the

¶40

petitioner is entitled to be appointed under

¶41

Rule 51B Chapter XIVA of the KER on

¶42

compassionate grounds. The only aspect found against her is that she has been appointed substantively, while the posts in 'uneconomic schools' can be filled up only on daily wage

¶43

WPC 2244/20

¶44

¶45

basis, as per Ext.P3 Circular.

¶46

That said, however, what is relevant

¶47

in this case is that the petitioner has obtained a statutory right - namely under Rule 51B Chapter XIVA of the KER - to be appointed consequent to the death of her mother and obviously, therefore, a circular of the Government, which is not a statutory provision, cannot overwrite the provisions of law. Clearly, therefore, Government could not have rejected the petitioner's proposal for approval merely on the basis of Ext.P3 and that too, when it merely says that such vacancies can be filled up in 'uneconomic' schools only through daily wage employees but

¶48

does not say that the said vacancy will have to be kept vacant until the school becomes 'economic'.

¶49

In the afore circumstances, I am

¶50

certain in my mind that Ext.P9 cannot obtain

¶51

¶52

WPC 2244/20

¶53

favour of this Court and that Government must reconsider the matter, after evaluating all relevant facts and adverting to my observations above.

¶54

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner, particularly taking note of her statutory right under Rule 51B Chapter XIVA of the KER and after affording an opportunity of being heard to her, as also the Manager of the School – either physically or through videoconferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 2244/20

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 1.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F/2680/2017 DATED 30.8.2017 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.58604/J2/12 GEN. EDN. DATED 6.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/7223/2017 DATED 13.10.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.11.2017 FILED BY 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.NO.(P)12/99 P & AID RD DATED 24.5.1999.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F3/85237/2017/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 11.5.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.N2/122/2018/GEN. EDN. DEPT. DATED 16.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (M.S.)NO.83/2018/GEN. EDN DATED 12.6.2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21.5.2019 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

¶64

WPC 2244/20

¶65

¶66

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.N2/122/2018/GEN. EDN DATED 29.11.2019, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE SANCTIONED POSTS OF STAFF IN THE SCHOOL FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C./1669/2014/K.DIS. DATED 30.4.2014 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR.

Aparna Mohan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna Mohan 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

Dinesan M Vs the State of Kerala

Saji P.K. Vs State of Kerala

C.T.Betty Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, M.V.H.S.S. Arumanoor Vs the District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara

Sheeja V.G. Vs Perumbadappu Grama Panchayath

S.Mohankumar Sumanam Vs the Institute 0F Management in Government