Quashed

Haritha K. T. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022WP(C)/15841/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the revision order rejecting the petitioner's qualification failed to consider specific executive orders equating State Trade Certificates. The Court quashed the order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter within eight weeks after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P15) is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, advert to Ext.P10, and pass fresh orders within eight weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing

Haritha K. T. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

HARITHA K.T. SEWING TEACHER, D.B.H.S.S., THACHAMPARA, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD – 678593.

¶10

BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 690 501

¶13

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

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

¶15

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD – 678593.

¶16

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

5 THE MANAGER D.B.H.S.S., THACHAMPARA, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 593. BY SMT. ANIMA, GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner states that on the cover of Exhibit P1 appointment

¶24

order, she is working as a Sewing Teacher at the D.B.H.S.S., Thachampara.

¶25

According to the petitioner, by Ext.P7 order, the proposal for approval has been rejected on three grounds. One is that the petitioner has not acquired K-TET qualification. The second reason is that she does not have the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Sewing Teacher, and the

¶26

3rd reason is that the manager was bound to appoint a protected teacher.

¶27

The petitioner asserts that the first reason cannot be sustained

¶28

under law as the Government, by executive order, has extended the time

¶29

limit prescribed for acquiring K-TET qualification till the end of the academic year 2020-2021. The second reason, according to the learned counsel,

¶30

cannot be sustained under the law in view of Ext.P10 order dated 19.5.2007,

¶31

wherein it has been clarified that the trade certificate issued by the SCVT is equivalent to the National Trade Certificate (NTC) issued by the NCVT. The

¶32

petitioner states that, questioning the impugned order, though she had

¶33

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

preferred a revision petition raising all tenable contention before the 1st

¶36

respondent, the same stands rejected by Ext.P15 order. All that is stated in

¶37

Ext.P15 is that the qualification acquired by the petitioner is the State Trade Certificate in Fashion Technology issued by the State Council for Vocational

¶38

Training (SCVT), and it is not the requisite qualification. The petitioner states that the stand taken in Ext.P15 cannot be sustained under the law in view of

¶39

Ext.P10. The learned counsel requested that since Ext.P15 was issued without properly considering the contentions above, the 1st respondent be

¶40

directed to reconsider Ext.P15 in the light of Ext.P10 Government Pleader.

¶41

While opposing the submissions, the learned Government Pleader

¶42

submitted that though in Ext.P15, the only reason stated is that the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification as prescribed in Ext.P7 order, there are other reasons as well.

¶43

In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

¶44

the petitioner that the only reason stated is that the qualification acquired by

¶45

the petitioner and issued by the SCVT is not credible.

¶46

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

Prima facie, I am of the view that the matter requires

¶49

reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent as it appears that the contentions of the petitioner have not been considered in a proper

¶50

perspective by the 1st respondent.

¶51

In view of the discussion above, Ext.P15 will stand quashed. There

¶52

will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, adverting

¶53

to Ext.P10, and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, expeditiously, in

¶54

any event, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

¶55

this judgment. Before passing orders, an opportunity of being heard shall be

¶56

afforded to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.

¶57

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

¶62

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15841/2020

¶65

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶66

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE DATED 08.05.2009 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.05.2011.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE B.A.DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2017 AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATE TRADE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE STATE COUNCIL FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/B4/2254/2016 DATED 31.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/6484/17/K.DIS. DATED 4.7.2017.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.7.2017.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1388/2007/LABOUR DATED 19.05.2007.
EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.74/2018/G.EDN. DATED 29.05.2018.

¶67

WP(C) NO. 15841 OF 2020

¶68

¶69

EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT UNDER RULE 92 OF CHAPTER XIV A KER.
EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.29009/2018.
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J3/201/19/GEN.ED. DATED 17.09.2019.
EXHIBIT	P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.946/2020/GEN. ED. DATED 25.02.2020.
Exhibit	P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶70

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Haritha K. T. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haritha K. T. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujatha Menon Vs State of Kerala

Sreedevi.B Vs the State of Kerala

Serms Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Geetha.K.S Vs Sree Narayana Samskarika Samithy Represented by the Secretary

Sreeja K., Vs State of Kerala

Incore House Keeping (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India