Partly allowed

The Manager, A.U.P. School, Vadakkepotta Alathur, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2022WP(C)/20027/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A school manager sought approval for teacher appointments and consequential benefits that were negated by a government order revising a prior appointment. The court upheld petitioners' right to representation before such review.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Exhibit P12 order is quashed, the government is directed to reconsider the matter with due notice to all affected parties, and the appointment of Smt. Sameena A. is permitted if condition

The Manager, A.U.P. School, Vadakkepotta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 1STDAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

THE MANAGER, A.U.P. SCHOOL,
VADAKKEPOTTA ALATHUR, PALAKKAD AND
KARUNA U.P. SCHOOL, THENNILAPURAM,
PALAKKAD (UNDER SARIGA PUBLIC SCHOOL INDIVIDUAL
EDUCATIONAL AGENCY NOW)
(P.S.SASIKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. SIVAN NAIR, F-O,
BUILTECH GREENS, MANAPULIKAVU,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD - 678013.

¶6

BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶9

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

¶10

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, [ D.D.E. ] CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶11

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, [ A.E.O. ] 678 541 ALATHUR, PALAKKAD -678 541.

¶12

SM T NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶13

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON01.12.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner herein, claiming himself to be the Manager of AUP School, Vadakkepotta, has approached this Court seeking to issue directions to the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of Smt. Sreeja, Smt. Anjali Prakash and Smt. Sameena, who were all appointed as per Exts. P3, P4, and P5, respectively, and for payment of consequential benefits.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner herein that, by Exhibit P3 order dated 23.06.2016, Smt. Sreeja C. was appointed in a vacancy that arose consequent to the retirement of one Smt. Ramani. He points out that by Exhibit P6 Government Order dated 26.03.2022, the Government has issued directions to the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of Smt. Sreeja, against the substantive post caused due to the termination of certain Smt. Asha Soman, which has been lying vacant since 2010. It is stated that during the academic year 2017-18, in the substantive post of UPST, which arose due to the termination of Asha Soman, a certain Anjaly Prakash was appointed as UPST as per Exhibit P4 order with effect from 01.06.2017. Later, a substantive vacancy of Full-Time Arabic Teacher arose in Karuna UP School, Thennilapuram, due to the retirement of a teacher and a certain Smt. Sameena was appointed by Exhibit P5 order dated 01.06.2020. While the writ

¶19

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

petition was pending consideration before this Court, the Government has come up with Exhibit P12 order, by which Exhibit P6 order which was issued under Rule 92 of Chapter IVA of the KER, was revised suo motu by the Government, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the teachers concerned or the Manager. Contending that Exhibit P12 is illegal, as the statute does not confer upon a power to review its own orders and for violation of the principles of natural justice, this writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

Issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of aforesaid 3 teachers viz. Smt. Sreeja, Smt. Anjali Prakash and Smt. Sameena appointed as per Ext.P. 3, Ext.P.4 and Ext.P.5, respectively with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances with effect from the date of appointments.

¶23

1(a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside Ext.P.12 in the interest of justice.

¶24

Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the 4th respondent AEO for committing culpable delay in approving the termination of Smt. Asha Soman and consequential proceedings;

¶25

Declare that appointments of aforesaid 3 teachers viz. Smt. Sreeja, Smt. Anjali Prakash and Smt. Sameena appointed as per Ext.P3, Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 are liable to be approved with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances with effect from the original date of appointments.”

¶26

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

Sri. U. Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioner, submitted that Ext.P12 order cannot be sustained under law for more reasons than one. According to the learned counsel, the authority which passed the order has become functus officio and an order adversely affecting the rights of the party could not have been issued without hearing them.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader, while opposing the submissions, refers to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.917 of 2019 dated 14.01.2020, and it is submitted that the Division Bench, in identical circumstances, held that the Government will have to be granted an opportunity to review its order particularly when records reveal that the order has been mistakenly passed. It is submitted that Exhibit P12 order was issued when it came to the notice of the Government that there was no post to accommodate Smt. Sreeja in the year 2016-2017, and vacancy arose only in the year 2017-18.

¶31

Sri. Balagangadharan has strongly controverted the assertions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶32

I have considered the submissions. The main contention of Sri.Balagangadharan is that Ext.P12 cannot be sustained as the Government has no powers to review its own order and that too without adhering to the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

principles of natural justice. Insofar as the review powers of the Government is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that when a blatant mistake had occurred, and the order discloses the said aspect, the Government cannot be denied an opportunity to review its own order. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel, before passing an order, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the affected parties. The records reveal that before suo motu reviewing its own order, no opportunity was granted to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hand of the 1st respondent.

¶36

In view of the discussion above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶37

(i) Exhibit P12 will stand quashed.

¶38

(ii) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter with due notice to the petitioner and all other affected parties. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise all contentions, including the one that the 1st respondent has no power to suo motu review its own order.

¶39

iii) Orders shall be passed as directed above, expeditiously, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

(iv) It is ordered that in so far as Exhibit P9 is concerned, if the conditions made mention of in Exhibit P9 are complied with by the Manager, and if there are no other impediments, the respondents shall approve the appointment of Smt. Sameena A.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

avs

¶47

WP(C) NO. 20027 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO DDEPKD/1717/2022-B1 DATED` `12.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE DDE PALAKKAD.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY ORDER NO.C/2915/K.DIS DATED 03.11.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2017` `ISSUED TO SMT. SREEJA.C. AS UPSA IN AUPS,` `VADAKKEPOTTA.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2017` `ISSUED TO SMT.ANJALI PRAKASH AS UPSA IN AUPS,` `VADAKKEPOTTA.`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2020` `ISSUED TO SMT.SAMEENA AS FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER IN` `KARUNA UP SCHOO, THENNILAPURAM.`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER (RT) NO.2069/2022/GEDN` `DATED 26.03.2022.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER (RT) NO.3172/2021/G.EDN` `DATED 28.06.2021.`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO5/2022 DATED 26.04.2022 OF THE` `PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G1/15328/2021/DGE DATED` `18.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF` `GENERAL EDUCATION.`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER` `DATED 26.04.2022.`
`Exhibit P11`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AEO DATED` `30.05.2022.`
`Exhibit P12`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER (P) NO. 4017/2022/GEDN` `DATED 11.07.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`

The Manager, A.U.P. School, Vadakkepotta Alathur, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, A.U.P. School, Vadakkepotta Alathur, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Henry.P., Vs the Manager

Sr.Philominal Vs the Manager

Thengatt Ummer Hajee Vs State of Kerala

Super Industries Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager Aup School Pallikkal(Pallam), Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Hans Syringes Private Limited Vs Kerala Medical Services Corporation Limited