Disposed

Juli R.L. v. Director of General Educations

Kerala HC20 Oct 2021WP(C)/620/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-day order in a writ petition concerning teacher recruitment directed the Director of General Education to consider a pending appeal filed by the petitioner and pass orders within two months, dispensing with notice to other respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal, afford hearing, and pass orders expeditiously within two months.

Juli R.L. Vs Director of General Educations — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JULI R.L., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. FRANCIS, F.R. VILLA, KAMPIPPALAM, THALAPUZHA, WAYANAD-670 644.

¶9

BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2 ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, 8/282, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 3 THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF ROMAN CATHOLIC, DIOCESE OF CALICUT, BISHOP HOUSE, MALAPARAMABA, KOZHIKODE-673 009, REP. BY ITS CORPORATE MANAGER, FR. THOMAS PANAKKAL. 4 VINEETHA SEBASTIAN, AGE NOT KNOWN , TEACHER, ST. XAVIER'S U P SCHOOL, PERUVEYIL, KOZHIKODE-673 008.

¶12

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner states that she is a B.Ed. Graduate in Hindi. In the year 2014, the 3rd respondent Corporate Educational Agency invited applications towards future vacancies in the aided schools under its management. The petitioner also applied and participated in the written exams and she secured the second rank. In the year 2019, she realised that a vacancy had arisen in the school under the management and appointment was given to the 4th respondent who had not even attended the exam. In the said circumstances, she submitted a representation and when no action was taken, approached this Court. Pursuant to directions issued, the representation was considered and the same was rejected by Ext.P6 order. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶17

Sri. Jinish Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that pending consideration of the writ petition, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 1st respondent. It is submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider the appeal and pass orders within a time frame.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader submits that if the request of the petitioner is only to consider Ext.P7 appeal on its merits, necessary directions can be issued.

¶19

In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for, notice to the

¶20

WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021 3

¶21

respondents 3 and 4 are dispensed with.

¶22

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of in the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶23

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 appeal, 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 her authorised representative as well as respondents 3 and 4.

¶24

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶26

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

SD/-

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶29

DSV

¶30

WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021 4

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 620/2021

¶32

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE EXAM.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C 32511/2020 DATED 27.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F/3733/2019 DATED 28.09.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SENT BY THE PETITIONER ON 24.03.2021 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶34

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL

Juli R.L. v. Director of General Educations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juli R.L. v. Director of General Educations

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

Ranjitha v., Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Salam Vs S. Rajendran

Bushrabi Ap Vs State of Kerala

The Principal, Vs Central Board of Secondary Examination

Vellappally Natesan Vs T. Narayanan IPS

Joy Vs Saji Tg.