Disposed

Lijo C.F v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2022WP(C)/10981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage by directing the 1st respondent to consider three revision petitions expeditiously, within four months, after affording an opportunity of being heard. Notice to the 6th respondent was dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 1st respondent to consider the three revision petitions expeditiously within four months after offering a hearing.

Lijo C.F Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 LIJO C.F AGED 38 YEARS S/O. C.T. FRANCIS, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRACODE (PO), KUMARANELLUR (VIA), WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680590, NOW WORKING AS HST (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), ST. ANTONY'S HSS, AMMADAM, THRISSUR - 680563.

¶9

2 SMITHA JOSE, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. RIJO FRANCO, MANJALI HOUSE, VARAKKARA (P.O), THRISSUR - 680302, NOW WORKING AS HST (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), ST. JOSEPH'S HSS, VELUPADAM, THRISSUR - 680303.

¶10

3 JINI K.O AGED 34 YEARS W/O. BENNY B.M, BRAHMAKULAM HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR, NOW WORKING AS UPST, ST.SEBASTIAN HSS, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR - 680511.

¶11

BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014,

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (D.D.E), THRISSUR – 680003.

¶16

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022 2

¶17

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (D.E.O) THRISSUR - 680020.

¶18

5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680506.

¶19

6 THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF TRICHUR, TRICHUR DIOCESE, CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE, TRICHUR - 680005.

¶20

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022 3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in granting approval of appointment to the petitioners herein, they are stated to have preferred Exts.P7, P12 and P15 revision petitions before the 1st respondent.

¶25

Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the limited request of the petitioners is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P7, P12 and P15 revision petitions expeditiously, within a timeframe.

¶26

Heard Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader

¶27

as well. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the 6th respondent is dispensed with.

¶28

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 at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶29

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

¶30

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022 4

¶31

consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7, P12 and P15 revision petitions after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioners herein or their authorized representative and the 6th respondent.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

IAP

¶39

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022 5

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10981/2022

¶41

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶42

Exhibit	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 11.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/24744/2021 DATED 15.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 30.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/28873/2021 DATED 24.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EC4/234549/2021/D.G.E KDIS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2022.
Exhibit	P6 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 27.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P7 A TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION OF THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 9.2.2022 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 14.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/28637/2021 DATED 23.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P10 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 27.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶43

WP(C) NO. 10981 OF 2022 6

¶44

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/24876/2021 DATED 24.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶45

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.2.2022. Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 22.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4/28633/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2021.

¶46

Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY REVISION PETITION DATED 9.2.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶47

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶48

NIL

Lijo C.F v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo C.F 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

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala

Jeeworth Jos T Vs 1. the State of Kerala

Renjitha R. Vs Kerala University of Health

Sreevidya N. Vs the State of Kerala

Srinivasan.a.T. Vs the District Educational Officer

Rakesh a., Vs Shajahan IAS