Partly allowed

Anjana K. v. the Director of General Education

Kerala HC12 Oct 2022WP(C)/11413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning an appointment dispute in a government school was dismissed via a stay or directions order. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's petition after providing an opportunity of hearing within four months.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's petition after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Anjana K. Vs the Director of General Education — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

ANJANA K. ARUN BHAVAN, POLIKODE, VAYKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691548.

¶10

BY ADVS. V.PREMCHAND SURYA MOHAN P.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691301.

¶14

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691305.

¶15

4 THE MANAGER ABDUL KHADER MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THADICADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691306.

¶16

5 H RAHIM. FORMER MANAGER, ABDUL KHADAR MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THADICADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691306.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

6 JOMY JOHN UPST, ABDUL KHADAR MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THADICADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691306. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA P.B.SAHASRANAMAN T.S.HARIKUMAR SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPST by the 5th

¶24

respondent on 01.06.2020 in terms of Ext.P1 order in the vacancy which

¶25

arose consequent to the retirement of a certain Prasanna Kumari C.R. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering the request of the petitioner herein, Ext.P10 order has been issued by the Deputy Director directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the 6th respondent, who was appointed by the present manager. The petitioner

¶26

asserts that being aggrieved, she has preferred Ext.P8 request before the 1st respondent, and her prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st

¶27

respondent to consider the same in the light of the statutory provisions.

¶28

I have heard Sri. V. Premchand, the learned counsel appearing for

¶29

the petitioner, Sri. T.S. Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. In view of the nature of the

¶30

order that I propose to pass, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.

¶31

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent

¶32

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

controverting the contentions raised by the petitioner herein. It is stated that

¶35

the documents which are placed before this Court are not genuine and that the petitioner is not qualified for appointment to the post of teacher as she is

¶36

not having KTET. Various other contentions are also raised in the counter

¶37

affidavit.

¶38

A counter has also been filed by the 2nd respondent controverting

¶39

the assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶40

Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner concerns Ext.P10 order

¶41

issued by the Deputy Director. From the records, it appears that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 petition before the 1st respondent, and her

¶42

request is for the consideration of the same. The contentions raised by the respondents can very well be considered by the 1st respondent at the time of hearing Ext.P8 for which adequate opportunity can be granted. It is made

¶43

clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assertions made by the petitioner in Ext.P8 and all the contentions advanced

¶44

by the petitioner to advance her cause and that of the party respondents are

¶45

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

left open.

¶48

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶49

petition, the submissions made across the Bar, and the facts and

¶50

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶51

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

¶52

up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

¶53

virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorized representative and the party respondents.

¶54

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

¶55

expeditiously, in any event, within four months from the date

¶56

of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶57

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy

¶58

of the writ petition along with the judgment before the

¶59

concerned respondent for further action.

¶60

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶61

¶62

d) If the petitioner seeks a stay of proceedings initiated

¶63

by the Deputy Director, she can file an application before the authority before whom Ext.P8 is pending, who shall consider

¶64

the same with notice to all concerned and take a decision

¶65

within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of such application.

¶66

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

¶71

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶72

¶73

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11413/2022

¶74

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶75

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE SCHOOL .
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.11.2021 SENT BY THE CHAIRMAN, AKMVHS, THADICADU TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2021 IN WPC NO.9195/2021 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2021 IN WPC NO.27913/2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.03.2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.03.2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1-6- 2020 ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER IN CHARGE TO THE DEO PUNALUR
Exhibit-P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PHYSICAL FITNESS AND CONNECTED PAPERS
Exhibit-P13	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15-11-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AKMSH
Exhibit-P14	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15-11-2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGER

¶76

WP(C) NO. 11413 OF 2022

¶77

¶78

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :

¶79

Exhibit R.6(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDES ORDER NO. B2/1623/2021 DATED 13-10-2021 Exhibit R.6(B) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDES ORDER NO. E.T5/13032/2021/D.G.E DATED 27-05-2022 Exhibit R.6(C) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THIS RESPONDENT BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 15-07-2021 Exhibit R.6(D) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.B.2/28144/2021 DATED 18-09-2021 Exhibit R.6(E) THE MANAGER SUBMITTED A HEARING NOTE ON THAT DAY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE MANGER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-01-2022

Anjana K. v. the Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana K. v. the Director of General Education

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

Valsa a X Vs State of Kerala

Ashish G.Nath Vs State of Kerala

Sujith P.S Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Prabhath Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Rani S. Vs the State of Kerala

The Principal, St. Teresa'S College Vs Mahatma Gandhi University