Disposed

Anjana a.R, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2022WP(C)/16465/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an upper primary school teacher, challenged orders cancelling her continuous appointment and initiating salary recovery proceedings alleged to be based on a lien adjustment. The court directed the government education department to consider a pending revision petition and stay recovery proceedings pending its decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the pending revision petition within four months; proceedings under Exhibit P3 to be kept in abeyance insofar as the petitioner is conc

Anjana a.R, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944

¶2

WP(C) NO. 16465 OF 2022

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

ANJANA A.R,
AGED 36 YEARS
WIFE OF JYOTHIMON P.B,
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
T.M. VARGHESE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL,
VETTIYAR, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 558
(RESIDING AT ASWATHY, VAZHUVADI,
P.O. THAZHAKARA, MAVELIKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 102 (M. 9446590104).
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.

¶9

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR TEMPLE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 690 101.

¶10

5 THE MANAGER, T.M. VARGHESE, MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, VETTIYAR, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 558.

¶11

SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶12

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON06.10.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 16465 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner contends that she has approved continuous

¶17

appointment as UPST w.e.f. 01.06.2016 in the T M Varghese Memorial High School, Vettiyar, an aided school managed by the 5th respondent. She contends that by Exhibit P2 order, the 4th respondent has ordered that the approval granted to the petitioner as UPST w.e.f 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017 is to be cancelled for adjusting a lien of the teacher who was promoted and posted as HSA (English) from 01.10.2014. The petitioner contends that on the strength of the said order, Exhibit P3 order has been issued, cancelling the approval of appointment of the petitioner as UPST. The petitioner contends that thereafter steps have been initiated for recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2017. The petitioner cotneds that challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P4 revision petition before the Government, which is pending consideration. It is in the afore circumstances this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibit P3 and also for incidental reliefs.

¶18

When the matter came up for consideration, Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that necessary directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P4 and also

¶19

¶20

WP(C) NO. 16465 OF 2022

¶21

requested that until orders are passed on Exhibit P4, proceedings of recovery initiated based on Exhibit P3 be kept in abeyance.

¶22

I have heard the learned Government Pleader. In view of the

¶23

order that I propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the 5th respondent if notice is dispensed with.

¶24

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 by issuing the following directions:

¶25

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4,

¶26

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her

¶27

authorized representative and the 5th respondent.

¶28

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. Until orders are passed on Ext.P4, proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 shall be kept in abeyance in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶29

WP(C) NO. 16465 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶35

avs

¶36

WP(C) NO. 16465 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16465/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER DATED`	`APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE` `01.06.2016.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 01.12.2021`	`ORDER NO. B2/2424/2021/DEO (1)` `OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 09.05.2022` `(GENERAL) TO THE` `RESPONDENT.`	`ORDER NO. EC1/15220/2021/DGE` `OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR` `OFFICE ATTACHED TO THE 2ND`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE GOVERNMENT D`	`REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE` `ATED 13.05.2022.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `423 DECIDED ON 0`	`DECISION REPORTED IN 1990 KHC` `4.07.1989.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `297 DECIDED ON 1`	`DECISION REPORTED IN 1982 KHC` `5.06.1982.`

Anjana a.R, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana a.R, 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

Mahesan P. Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Leena a, Vs State of Kerala

Sumathy T Vs State of Kerala

Snineesh P Vs the State of Kerala

Hafis Aboobacker Vs Apj Abdul Kalam Technological University

Ammini College of Engineering Vs the State of Kerala