Remanded

Yogi Rakhee Manohar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2021WP(C)/2764/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner UPST challenged rejection of Manager's revision petition. Court held communication under Art 166(2) invalid. Directed Government to consider petition with speaking order and hearing, noting prior order granting benefit to similarly situated person under specific KER rules.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition filed by Manager must be reconsidered by Government with notice to parties, hearing, and speaking order within three months.

Yogi Rakhee Manohar Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2764 OF 2021(U)

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

SMT.YOGI RAKHEE MANOHAR, AGED 43 YEARS W/O.SHAJITH, UPST, ANJARAKANDY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,

¶8

P.O.MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MURESHALAYAM, KUZHIMBALODE, P.O.ANJARAKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS :-

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR – 670 001.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR – 670 001.

¶15

5 THE MANAGER ANJARAKKANDY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.MAMBA – 670 611, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.2764 OF 2021(U)

¶19

-: 2 :-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021

¶22

The petitioner, who was appointed as UPST by Ext.P2 order has approached this Court challenging the rejection of Ext.P6 revision petition filed by the Manager by Ext.P8 communication dated 24.12.2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P6 was a revision petition preferred by the Manager under Rule 92 Chapter XIV A KER. The rejection by Ext.P8, which is only a communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Manager is completely untenable, it is submitted. It is further submitted that in Ext.P12 order issued by the Government on 22.1.2020, an identically situated person had been given the benefit and appointments had been approved on the ground that the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter XXXI of the KER are liable to be looked into with regard to the qualifications for appointment as UPST.

¶23

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the rejection of Ext.P6 revision petition preferred by the Manager by Ext.P8, which is only a communication addressed to the Manager and which does not answer the requirements of a Government Order in terms of Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India is completely untenable. Further, Ext.P8 is a

¶24

WP(C).No.2764 OF 2021(U)

¶25

-: 3 :-

¶26

non-speaking order and the Government cannot, in exercise of its revisional power, pass a communication in the nature of Ext.P8.

¶27

In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the revision petition preferred by the Manager is liable to be considered in accordance with law by the Government, with notice to the petitioner as well as the Manager and an appropriate speaking order is liable to be passed by the Government. The petitioner as well as the Manager shall be heard through any appropriate means including video conferencing and Ext.P12 order produced by the petitioner in this writ petition shall also be taken note of before orders are passed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for compliance. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶29

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶30

Jvt/9.2.2021

¶31

WP(C).No.2764 OF 2021(U)

¶32

-: 4 :-

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AS JPSA ON DAILY WAGE BASIS WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITY.13/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/10/2018 VIDE ORDER NO. B2/2710/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO. B2/22181/2018/2018.K DIS DATED 19/1/2019.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EM4/2957/2019/DGE/K.DIS DATED 15/2/2020 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION DATED 28/2/2020 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/3/2019 CLEARING THE KTET EXAMINATION FOR UPPER PRIMARY CLASSES.
EXHIBIT P7(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/3/2019 CEARING KTET EXAMINATION FOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/12/2020 VIDE NO.463/TI/2020/G.EDN ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 534/2002/G.EDN DATED 19/3/2002.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 67/2018/G.EDN DATED 22/5/2018.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF BAHCELOR OF ARTS.
EXHIBIT P11(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF BAHCELOR OF EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 424/2020/G.EDN DATED 22/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Yogi Rakhee Manohar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogi Rakhee Manohar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiji C.R. Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council (Keralam)

Biju Varughese Vs Bank of Baroda

Jismy Antony, Vs the University of Calicut

Dr. M.P. Anitha Vs the Manager, Snm Training College

P.M.Salim Vs Kerala Water Authority

Mohanachandran T Vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited