Disposed

Hema v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2022WP(C)/13468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for approval of appointment of a Lower Primary School teacher with retrospective effect from 01.06.2016. Court observed that interim stay was lifted in the related W.P. and directed the 4th Respondent to reconsider the appointment pending opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to produce copy of writ petition and judgment before the 4th Respondent for reconsideration; Respondent to pass orders within eight weeks after hearing parties.

Hema v Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27THDAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 5TH KARTHIKA,1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13468 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HEMA V
W/O. VISHNU.A.M., RESIDING AT ANDALADI MANA,
MARATHOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 306,
WORKING AS LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, AIDED UPPER
PRIMARY SCHOOL, NJANGATTUR, NJANGATTIRI P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

¶8

BY ADVS.
T.MADHU
C.R.SARADAMANI
SHAHID AZEEZ
RENJISH S. MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 534.

¶14

5 THE MANAGER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NJANGATTIRI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 903.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.13468 OF 2022 2

¶16

SMT.SAROJINI, GP

¶17

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON27.10.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.13468 OF 2022 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner states that she was appointed as a Lower Primary School teacher in the Aided Upper Primary School, Njangattur on 01/06/2016 in a retirement vacancy. She asserts that, though the proposal was forwarded to the 4th respondent, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not having K-TET qualification and that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the above School overlooking the claims of two Rule 51A claimants.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that she acquired K-TET qualification on 25/06/2018 as evidenced by Ext. P2.

¶22

Petitioner asserts that on the rejection order passed by the 4th respondent, she preferred a revision petition and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, Ext. P4 order was issued.

¶23

While issuing Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent has waived the objections raised by respondents 3 and 4, and it was found that the appointment of the petitioner can be approved with effect from 01/06/2016 if the same is otherwise in order.

¶24

The petitioner contends that despite Ext. P4 order, the 4th respondent refused to grant approval and sought for clarification in the light of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.(C). 19808 of 2021.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.13468 OF 2022 4

¶26

The petitioner contends that this Court has finally disposed of the matter as reported in Varghese v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1070)], and in that view of the matter, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the concerned respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lower Primary School teacher at the fifth respondent School with effect from 01/06/2016 and to disburse the consequential benefits to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court, so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶28

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the fourth respondent to take further action based on Exhibit P4 order dated 09/11//2021 passed by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court, so as to secure the ends of justice.

¶29

In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated

¶30

as follows:

¶31

The first respondent after considering the revision petition has waived the objections raised by the third and fourth respondents vide order dated 09.11.2021 in which the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2016 can be approved by the 4th respondent if otherwise in order and thereby complied with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court.

¶32

It is submitted that the matter came up for consideration of the fourth respondent. At that time this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No.19808/2021 dated 23.09.2021 directed to consider the disabled candidates for appointment in Primary schools and hence the appointment to aided schools were stayed. As the appointment of the petitioner comes under the category

¶33

W.P.(C) No.13468 OF 2022 5

¶34

of posts listed for disabled candidates appointment, a clarification of government has been sought to avoid contempt of court, vide this office letter No.C/2957/2021 dated 09.03.2022.

¶35

It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court passed an interim order dated 23.12.2021 in W.P(C) No.19808/2021 challenging the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Director General of Education allegedly ignoring the mandate for providing reservation under section 33 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 wherein it is stipulated that every appropriate government is required to appoint in every establishment, such percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for persons or class of persons with disability of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision (ii) hearing impairment (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the post identified for each disability.

¶36

Sri. Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶37

submitted that the said reason for non-consideration cannot survive as this

¶38

Court has passed final judgment in W.P.(C) No.19808/2021 Varghese (supra), and in that view of the matter, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the concerned respondent.

¶39

Heard the learned Government Pleader.

¶40

I find that the only reason stated in Ext.P6 order is that this

¶41

Court had stayed the grant of approval by the interim order dated 23.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.19808 of 2021. The said writ petition has already

¶42

been disposed of by issuing directions. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that directions can be issued to the 4th respondent to reconsider

¶43

W.P.(C) No.13468 OF 2022 6

¶44

the matter in light of the observations above.

¶45

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th

¶46

respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of Exhibit P4 order issued by the 1st respondent and the observations and directions in Varghese (supra) after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorized representative and the 5th respondent. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for

¶47

further action.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶50

anm

¶51

W.P.(C) No.13468 OF 2022 7

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13468/2022

¶53

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶54

`Exhibit`	`P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `1.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED` `25.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF` `EDUCATION, K-TET KERALA.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.4.2021 IN` `WPC NO.9151/2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2021` `PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 9.3.2022` `OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `23.9.2021 IN WPC NO.19808/2021 ON THE FILES OF` `THIS HONOURABLE COURT.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `23.12.2022 IN WPC NO.19808/2021 OF THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.3.2022` `ISSUED BY THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY TO A` `QUESTION BY SRI. ANSWAR SADATH MLA`
`RESPONDE`	`NTS’ EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`R4(a)`	`A true copy of the order No.C/24823/2022 dated` `09.06.2022`

Hema v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hema v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs State of Kerala

Susan Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

Prema S.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Nancy Devassy, Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. Mohammed Farooque K.K Vs Deputy Director

Megha a. Vs Principal, Govt. Law College, Tvm