Allowed

Tom Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2021WP(C)/9025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a writ petition filed by a petition teacher seeking regularisation of service period and consequential benefits. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider a representation regarding the petitioner's seniority after hearing the petitioner and the 6th respondent, including through video conferencing, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representation with notice to petitioner and 6th respondent after hearing within three months.

Tom Jose Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 9025 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 9025 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

TOM JOSE AGED 37 YEARS

¶10

S/O THOMAS P.J,(FCTM), NIRMALA HIGH SCHOOL, KABANIGIRI, WAYANAD, (UNDER THE CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY, DIOCESES OF MANANTHAVADY), RESIDING AT POOVAKUNNEL HOUSE, PAZHUPATHOOR P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-PIN-673592.

¶11

BY ADVS. FRANCO T.J. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). SRI.V.R.SASSIDHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION(DDE), OFFICE OF THE DDE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN-673122.

¶16

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (DEO) OFFICE OF THE DEO, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN-673122.

¶17

5 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶18

6 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY, DIOCESES OF MANANTHAVADY, NALLOORNADU P.O, DWARAKA, WAYANAD-673591.

¶19

SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 9025 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶25

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider Exts.P-1 to P-3 and Ext.P-9 in a time bound manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;

¶26

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P-4 revision petition and re-examine Ext.P-7 and protect the seniority and consequential monetary benefits entitled for;

¶27

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to regularize the service period of the petitioner from 01/11/2009 to 31/05/2011 for seniority and all consequential benefits with adherence to Exts.P-1 to P3;

¶28

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the salary arrear claim of the petitioner pertaining to the period 01-11-2009 to 31-052011.”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is appointed as Part Time Contingent Menial in the St.Joseph's T.T.I. Mananthavady on 01.11.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner's appointment was approved including him in the teachers package by Ext.P7. It is contended that seeking approval from the initial date of appointment,

¶31

WP(C) NO. 9025 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent with Ext.P11 representation and seeks a consideration of the same.

¶34

Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that Ext.P11 representation preferred by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent is liable to be considered in accordance with law. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 representation preferred by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner as well as the 6^th respondent and after hearing them, through any appropriate means, including video conferencing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 9025 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9025/2021

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 01.11.2008 NO.K.DIS/B4-141/1 OF THE PETITIONER	APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.173/2008 ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT 3 DATED 22.03.2013 IN FAVOUR .
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 01.06.2009	APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.44/2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.D- 07/09/2009 ISSUED	RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE DIS-B3/4240/2009 DATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 25/07/2012 OF THE	APPEAL.NO. NIL DATED ON 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 09/11/2012 OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN	LETTER NO,B2/8079/2021 DATED 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO T.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 19.12.2012	LETTER NO EMS/62670/12/DPI ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.108/13/G.EDN D 1ST RESPONDENT.	RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE GO(P) ATED 25/03/2013 ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE (5)/31639/2016/DP BY THE 2ND RESPON	LETTER NO.E.M. I DATED 23/06/2016 FORWARDED DENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 20.06.2018 SUBMIT FOR GENERAL EDUCA	REPRESENTATION DATED TED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER TION.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 05.11.2020	APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT AND THE REPLY DATED 23/11/2020
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED THE 1ST RESPONDEN	REPRESENTATION OF THE 16-04-2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE T
RESPONDENT'S/S EX	HIBITS: NIL

Tom Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tom Jose 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

Ajith Kumar P.K. Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Suresh Chandran Vs Dr.R.Prakash Kumar

Rejitha K.N. Vs State of Kerala

Amrutha a Vs State of Kerala

Manager, Kottayam Raja'S High School Vs State of Kerala

Reji Thomas Vs Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd.