Petitioner sought quashing of Government Order rejecting her appointment renewal and order directing reconsideration, as it failed to account for relevant judicial directions regarding age relaxation for continuous service.
Ext.P21 order quashed; order to reconsider and pass fresh orders within 4 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 17101 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MINI T.J.,
FULL TIME MENIAL, HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALAYANNUR,
KALLOOR P.O., VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
JOSEPH GOPURAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD - 680 506.4 MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALAYANNUR, KALLOOR P.O., VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR - 680 306.5 DIVYA. V., LPSA, CLERK, HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVALAYANNUR, KALLOOR P.O., VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR - 680 306.W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
2
BY ADVS.
MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.
P.CHANDRASEKHAR
K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
C.RAMAN
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was initially appointed as HSA (Social
Studies), on a daily wage basis, on 08.08.2008, at the High School,
Thiruvalayannur, as per Ext.P1 order. She worked as such till 29.02.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P2 order to a regular vacancy of clerk in a vacancy which arose when a certain Smt. K. Rugmini retired on 31.03.2010.
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
4
petitioner herein preferred W.P.(C) No.20040/2012, contending that the 5th respondent had no preferential claim. This Court, by a common judgment dated 10.04.2017, disposed of the matter, directing the Government to consider the rival claims of the parties. Ext.P9 order granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner was quashed to enable reconsideration. By the time Ext.P13 Government Order dated 25.03.2013 was issued, as per which the name of the petitioner was included in the package for deployment.
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
5
petitioner was over-aged. The petitioner, in the said circumstances, preferred Ext.P14 representation before the Government pointing out the above facts.
appointed as UPSA by Ext.P14(a) Order and the 5th respondent was appointed as an LPSA. Later, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.3831/2019, seeking issuance of directions, and pursuant to directions issued, Ext.P15 order was issued by the Government rejecting her request. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached this Court, and by Ext.P16 judgment, this Court took the view that the age relaxation pleaded for by the petitioner has to be considered in the light of Ext.P17 Government Order dated 03.05.1965. In tune with the directions issued, the Government considered the matter and issued Ext.P21 order rejecting her request. The petitioner asserts that while rejecting the request, the Government took the view that the appointment of the petitioner had not been approved, which according to the petitioner, is incorrect. The petitioner also asserts that, in Ext.P17 Government Order, it has been categorically held that if an incumbent has a previously approved service, the said incumbent is entitled to have age relaxation for subsequent appointments. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
6
i) to issue a Writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quash Exhibit P-21, P-15 and P-8 orders.
ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk at least notionally, for the period from 16/6/2010 to 14/7/2012 at the 4th respondent school.
iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial from 1/6/2018 to 5/6/2019 and release salary and other benefits.
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
7
Government order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of G.O.(P) No.4/2021/G. Edn dated 06.02.2021.
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
8
Menial from 01.06.2018. She had contended in the writ petition that the only objection against the petitioner’s appointment as Full-Time Menial with effect from 01.06.2018 was that she had crossed the age of 40 years and, therefore, was overaged for the said appointment. This Court, after considering the contentions of the petitioner and the Government, took the view that the raising of age effected by the 2014 Rules would have the effect of fixing the upper age limit as 36 years for general candidates. This Court had also held that the rejection of approval of her appointment on the ground that she was over aged could not be said to be illegal. However, after holding
as aforesaid, this Court proceeded to issue the following directions.
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
9
appointment as Full Time Menial or in any other available vacancy in accordance with law. If the petitioner approaches the Government with a representation, the same shall be considered with notice to the petitioner, the Manager and any other affected persons and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12. This Court, after referring to G.O.(Rt) No.1262/65/Edn. Dated
03.05.1965, had directed the Government to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for relaxation of the upper age limit for appointment as Full-Time Menial in any other available vacancy. The petitioner also refers to Ext.P19 order by which the Government, in similar facts and circumstances, allowed the claim for relaxation of age. However, the Government, while issuing Ext.P21 order, in pursuance to directions issued by this Court, has failed to take note of the spirit of the observations made by this Court. After detailing the entire facts and circumstances, the Government has issued Ext.P21 order, the operative portion of which reads as under:
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
10
(പി)നം.04/2021/െപാ.വിവ ഉ�രവിന്െറ ഖ�ിക (7) ബാധകമാ�ി ഉയർ� �പായപരിധിയിൽ ഇളവ് ന��ാവു�താണ�ു െപാതുവിദ�ാഭ�ാസ (െജ) വകു�് � ീകരണം നൽകിയി�ു�്. എ�ാൽ അംഗീകൃത സർ�ീസ് ഇ�ാ�തിനാൽ ഈ ആനുകൂല�വും �ശീമതി.മിനി.ടി.െജ. യ്�് അനുവദനീയമ�.
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
11
In view of the discussion above, Ext.P21 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to reconsider Ext.P20 in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P16, Ext.P17, and P19 Government Orders and G.O.(P) No.4/2021/G. Edn dated 06.02.2021 and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
12
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17101/2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 |
TRUE COPY8/8/2008. |
OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED |
|---|---|---|
Exhibit P2 |
TRUE COPY16/6/2010. |
OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED |
Exhibit P3 |
TRUE COPYTHE ACADEM |
OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FORIC YEAR 2010-11. |
Exhibit P4 |
TRUE COPYISSUED BYCHAVAKKAD |
OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDERTHE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICERDATED 13/4/2016. |
Exhibit P5 |
TRUE COPY14/12/12. |
OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED |
Exhibit P6 |
TRUE COPYTHE 5TH RE31/12/2012 |
OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BYSPONDENT TO THE MANAGER DATED. |
Exhibit P7 |
TRUE COPYISSUED BYCHAVAKKAD |
OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENTTHE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,DATED 11/9/2018. |
Exhibit P8 |
TRUE COPYDATED 27/1 |
OF THE GO(RT) NO.449/18/G.EDN./2018. |
Exhibit P9 |
TRUE COPY2/5/2012. |
OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED |
Exhibit P10 |
TRUE COPY |
OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT |
W.P.(C) No. 17101 of 2022
13
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 15/11/2018 |
|
|---|---|
Exhibit |
P11TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER DATED 25/8/2018. |
Exhibit |
P12TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.31596/18 DATED 27/9/2018. |
Exhibit |
P13TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.108/13/G.EDN.DATED 25/3/2013, ALONG WITH THE RELEVANTPAGE SHOWING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. |
Exhibit |
P14TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER DATED 2/2/2019. |
Exhibit |
P14 ATRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THEPETITIONER DATED 6/6/2019. |
Exhibit |
P15A COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1605/19/G.EDN.DATED 6/5/2019. |
Exhibit |
P16A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.14349/2019 DATED 1ST NOVEMBER 2021. |
Exhibit |
P17A COPY OF THE ORDER IN GO(RT)NO.1265/1965/GEDN DATED 3/5/1965. |
Exhibit |
P18A COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BYTHE PETITIONER DATED 2ND DECEMBER, 2021. |
Exhibit |
P19A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIZ. GO(RT)NO.486/2020/G.EDN DATED 24/1/2020. |
Exhibit |
P20A COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THEPETITIONER DATED 8TH NOVEMBER 2021. |
Exhibit |
P21A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIZ. GO(RT)NO.65/2022/G.EDN. DATED 26/4/2022. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of age limits for renewal of employment based on previously unapproved but continuous service.
Whether the Government Order considering renewal of employment took note of relevant judicial directions and comparable GOs.
Whether the petitioner's claim for age relaxation must be reconsidered by the authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MINI T.J.
STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Parties & counsel