Partly allowed

Shaheena P.A v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2021WP(C)/4558/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a deployment order affecting a protected teacher, directing authorities to reconsider the petitioner's appointment proposal and another applicant's, subject to affording them an opportunity of being heard within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the deployment order (Ext.P7) and directed the competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala to reconsider the proposal for appointment of the petitioner and the 7th respondent within three

Shaheena P.A 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAHEENA P.A AGED 34 YEARS W/O.MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, JR LANGUAGE TECHER(URUDU) (PART TIME) HUPS, POYLINGAPARAMBU AZHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR-670009(RESIDING AT PATHAYAPPURAKKAOL HOUSE, AZHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR-680666)

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD SRI.A.RENJIT SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, (ANNEXE BUILDING) THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695004

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DDE, THRISSUR-680003

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEO, IRINJALAKKUDA-680125

¶14

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE AEO, KODUNGALLUR-680664

¶15

6 THE MANAGER HUPS, POYLINGAPARAMBU, AZHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR-680003

¶16

7 THASLIM

¶17

OFFICE ATTENDANT, HUPS,POYLINGAPRAMBU, AZHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR-670009

¶18

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 2

¶19

8 SMITHA CRC COORDINATOR, BRC, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR-680641

¶20

R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R6 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA R6 BY ADV. SHRI.SANTHOSH BHASKARAN NAIR R6 BY ADV. SHRI.SABAD K.H.

¶21

SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 3

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner, who is stated to be working

¶26

as a Junior Language Teacher in Urdu at the HUPS, Poylingaparambu, Trissur - managed by the 6^th respondent - has approached this Court praying that Ext.P7 order issued by the 3^rd respondent – Deputy Director of Education deploying the 8^th respondent against the post in which she is working be quashed; with a resultant plea that the respondents be directed to approve her appointment with effect from 06/06/2019, along with all service benefits.

¶27

Shri.T.T.Mahamood, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even though various assertions and allegations have been made in this writ petition, it may not

¶29

be necessary for this Court to go into it in detail at this time because, pending this lis, a new vacancy has arisen in the post of 'Part-Time Hindi Teacher' in the School on 31/03/2020 and

¶30

that since the Government has denied approval to his client only because a protected teacher had

¶31

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 4

¶32

not been appointed – the School being a newly upgraded one – if the Manager is willing to set apart this vacancy to be filled up through a protected teacher, the entire controversy can be resolved.

¶33

on 06/01/2021 when this matter had been earlier

¶34

listed, I had passed the following order:-

¶35

“Shri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, submits that a vacancy has arisen in the School in the post of 'Part-Time Hindi' on 31/03/2020 and that the Manager is willing to set apart the same for being filled up through a protected teacher.

¶36

I, therefore, direct Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader, to obtain instructions as to whether the 8^th respondent, who is admittedly deployed to the School in question, can be recalled to her parent School. List on 11/01/2021.

¶37

Interim order is extended until further orders.”

¶38

Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that if the Manager is

¶39

willing to set apart the vacancy that arose in

¶40

the post of 'Part-Time Hindi Teacher' on 31/03/2020 for being filled up by a protected

¶41

teacher, the Government is willing to reconsider

¶42

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 5

¶43

the grant of approval to the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial appointment.

¶44

Shri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekara, learned

¶45

counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent -

¶46

Manager, in response, submitted that his client is willing to set apart the post of 'Part-Time Hindi Teacher' which arose on 31/03/2020 for being appointed by a Protected Teacher; and prayed that the other appointment made by his client, namely the 7^th respondent as an Office

¶47

Attendant, be also directed to be approved by the Educational Authorities.

¶48

On hearing the learned counsel for the

¶49

parties as afore, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri.P.M.Manoj submitted that since the

¶50

Manager is now ready to set apart the vacancy that arose on 31/03/2020 for being appointed through a protected teacher, the entire issue can be reconsidered by the competent Educational Authorities keeping this in mind.

¶51

The afore submissions of the parties

¶52

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 6

¶53

make it indubitable that the sole objection that

¶54

remains against the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, namely, that a protected teacher had not been appointed to the first arising vacancy, because the School was a newly upgraded one, does not really survive any further.

¶55

That said, the 8^th respondent, of course,

¶56

was deployed to the School as a protected teacher to work in the post now being held by

¶57

the petitioner, but since the objection against her approval now appear to be, at least prima facie , capable of being rectified, I am of the view that the 8^th respondent can be redeployed back at her parent School, she being a protected teacher. This will not cause any prejudice to the Government either because the 8^th respondent,

¶58

being protected, would have to be paid her

¶59

salary for the entire period of time, in any case.

¶60

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶61

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 7

¶62

writ petition and set aside Ext.P7 and direct the competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala to reconsider the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner, as well as the 7^th respondent, taking note of the undertaking made by the Manager that the post of 'Part-Time Hindi Teacher', which arose on 31/03/2020, is set apart for being filled up through a protected teacher.

¶63

The afore exercise shall be completed by the competent Educational Authority, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 7^th respondent and to the 6^th respondent - Manager – either physically or through video conferencing – 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.

¶64

I clarify that the deployment of the 8^th respondent made through Ext.P7 shall not be a

¶65

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 8

¶66

ground to deny approval either to the petitioner or to the 7^th respondent, since I notice that this Court had stayed the said deployment through the interim order dated 18/02/2020 and also because, in any event of the matter, she

¶67

can be redeployed to her parent School.

¶68

Needless to say, if after the afore

¶69

exercise, the appointments of the petitioner and the 7^th respondent are approved, all necessary service benefits shall be afforded to them

¶70

without any avoidable delay.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶73

JUDGE

¶74

MC/12.1.2021

¶75

WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 9

¶76

APPENDIX

¶77

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶78

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS PART TIME JR.LANGUAGE TEACHER (URDU) W.E.F. 06.06.2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO D/5877/2019 DATED 06.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1/190657/2019 DATED 27.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 03.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION G.O(P) NO.3/2019/G.EDN DATED 28.02.2019
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D/4151/2019 DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE AEO TO THE HM
EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A-4151/2019 DATED 30.01.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B5/13580/2019 DATED 14.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO J2/57/2019/G.EDN DATED 8.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶79

NIL

¶80

¶81

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Shaheena P.A v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheena P.A 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anthonyadimai Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

T.a.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar C Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Dr.Thara K.Simon Vs Manager

Santhome Central School Mookkannoor Vs State of Kerala

Sunimon K.S., Vs State of Kerala