Partly allowed

Shahul Hameed Sagheer V.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2021WP(C)/9436/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's revision petition regarding an appointment as a Junior Arabic Teacher. It directed the State to consider the revision deeming the required bond as executed, within three months, to approve the appointment from the initial date and disburse benefits if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P7 (order rejecting revision). Directed Respondent 1 to consider Ext.P2 revision within 3 months, deeming the bond executed. Directed approval from initial appointment date and disbursemen

Shahul Hameed Sagheer V.C 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

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9436 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAHUL HAMEED SAGHEER V.C

¶8

AGED 50 YEARS

¶9

S/O CHERIYA AHAMED P.V, JUNIOR ARABIC TEACHER, KNM VHSS, VADANAPPALLY, THRITHALLOOR P.O.THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS. K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 014.

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 664.

¶15

4 THE MANAGER, K.N.M.VHSS, VADANAPPALLY, THRITHALLOOR P.O.THRISSUR-680 619.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR- SR. G.P.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 9436 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers :-

¶23

“i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exts.P3 and P7 orders issued by the respondents 1 and 3 respectively.

¶24

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Junior Arabic Teacher in KNM VHSS, Vadanappally with effect from 19.06.2006 and to sanction and disburse all consequential benefits forthwith.”

¶25

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

¶26

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Junior Arabic Teacher on 19.07.2006 in the 4^th respondent's school in an additional division vacancy and the approval of the appointment was rejected stating that there was no sanctioned post vacant in the school due to the restriction imposed by the Government on creation of additional posts and that the manager has not executed bond in terms of the G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. However, the petitioner's appointment was approved with

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 9436 OF 2021

¶29

effect from 01.06.2011 onwards in the Teacher's Package. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the subsequent orders issued by the Government, Ext.P2 revision petition has been submitted by the petitioner before the Government seeking approval of his initial appointment from 19.07.2006 onwards. It is submitted that the only reason for non-approval is that the Manager had not submitted a bond in terms of G.O(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader submits that all appointments in additional division vacancies are liable to be apportioned in the ratio of 1:1 and if the appointment of protected teacher is not made as provided in G.O(P).No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010, then the Manager should at least have submitted a bond stating that such appointments would be made in accordance with the provisions of the Government Order. It is also not known whether the instant case is one where the Manager has

¶31

WP(C) NO. 9436 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

challenged the G.O(P) 10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 and whether the issue is pending before the Apex Court.

¶34

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that Ext.P2 revision petition preferred by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the 1^st respondent, in accordance with law. In the light of the binding judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, the question of approval shall be considered deeming that the Manager has executed the bond as required under G.O(P)10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010. Even in case the Manager has approached the Apex Court with a challenge to the Government Order, I am of the opinion that the deeming of execution of bond is liable to be taken into account, subject to the orders to be passed by the Supreme Court in the pending matters.

¶35

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P7 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P2 revision petition, after hearing the petitioner as well as the Manager within a period of three months from the date of

¶36

WP(C) NO. 9436 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the hearing can be conducted by any appropriate means, including through video conferencing. In case the petitioner is found eligible for approval with effect from the initial date of appointment, the monetary benefits shall also be disbursed within a period of three months thereafter.

¶39

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

bng/13.07.2021

WP(C) NO. 9436 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9436/2021

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶47

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 DATED 19.7.2006 WITH ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY DEO, CHAVAKKAD WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2011
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.20217
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO S2/274/2017/G.EDN DATED 11.7.2019
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO 100/J2/2017/G.EDN DATED 11.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 29.8.2018
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 2.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.3.2021 ENDORSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT B21087/21
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO 10607/2020 DATED 28.7.2020
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO 931/2016 DATED 24.7.2017

Shahul Hameed Sagheer V.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahul Hameed Sagheer V.C 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

H. Jawahar Vs the Director of General Education

V.C.Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Sreya Sudhakaran Vs the State of Kerala

The Sankara U.P School,Alangad Vs the State of Kerala

P.M.Janardhanan Vs the Director of General Education

Abdul Basith Vs the State of Kerala