Remanded

Deepa. N v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Nov 2022WP(C)/21553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Government order rejecting the petitioner's appointment approval. Relying on precedents that appointment irregularities cannot strip rights, the Court directed the Secretary to reconsider the matter expeditively within three months and pass fresh orders regarding the petitioner's statutory teacher approval and benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to reconsider the matter expeditiously and pass fresh orders granting approval of the petitioner's appointment and consequential benefits within three months.

Deepa. N Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 30THDAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA,1944
WP(C) NO. 21553 OF 2021

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

DEEPA. N
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. VINOD KUMAR K, U.P.S.T, T.R.K. HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL. VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679522.
RESIDING AT ANUSHREE, MANISSERY P.O, PALAKKAD - 679521.

¶5

BY ADVS.
U.BALAGANGADHARAN
S.ANJUSHA

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

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

¶8

2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
(HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION), HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS,
SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶9

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (D.D.E) ROBINSON ROAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶10

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (D.E.O) OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679101.

¶11

5 THE MANAGER, T.R.K. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679522.

¶12

SMT.ANIMA, GP

¶13

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 21553 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 order issued by the 1st respondent and also for a further direction to the 4th respondent to consider granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2009 to 03.06.2012 and to grant all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4 from 01.06.2009 to 03.06.2012 is liable to be approved with all consequential benefits.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

¶19

The petitioner states that by Ext.P2 order dated 01.06.2009, the petitioner was appointed as UPST with effect from 01.06.2009 to 16.03.2014 in the vacancy which was left behind due to the promotion of a certain Sri.Vinod. Though the proposal was forwarded to the DEO, the same was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 07.06.2010 for the reason that appointments of two seniors in service, viz. Smt.P.K.Sindhu and Smt.V.K.Sobha as UPST had not been approved. The specific assertion of the petitioner by relying on Ext.P3(a) order issued by the 4th respondent on 22.05.2020 is that the approval has been granted to the appointment of the aforesaid senior appointees with effect from the initial date itself.

¶20

The petitioner states that she was later re-appointed from

¶21

WP(C) NO. 21553 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

21.03.2011 to 01.09.2014 when a vacancy arose on account of the promotion of a certain Sri.Girish Gopinathan. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4(a) would reveal that the promotion of Sri. Girish Gopinathan has been duly approved by the 4th respondent. The petitioner states that the request for approval of the petitioner as UPST on the strength of Ext.P4 was rejected on the ground that the Manager who appointed the petitioner was not an approved Manager. According to the petitioner, the said stand cannot be taken as Ext.P5(a) order issued by the 4th respondent would reveal that Smt. Susheela was appointed as the Manager on 05.05.2014 for the period from 26.8.2010 to 25.8.2016. The petitioner states that she was thereafter regularly appointed with effect from 04.06.2012. Being aggrieved by the non-approval of the appointment for the period from 01.06.2009 to 03.06.2012, a revision petition was preferred before the Government, but the same was rejected by Ext.P7 order. Referring to Ext.P7, it is submitted that the reason stated therein is factually incorrect. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶24

(i) call for the records leaving to Ext.P7 and set aside the same by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari;

¶25

(ii) writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to consider approving the appointments of the petitioner from 1.6.2009 to 3.6.2012 and grant all consequential benefits including pay and allowances for the period.

¶26

(iii) declare that the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 from 1.6.2009 to 3.6.2013 are liable to be approved with all consequential benefits.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 21553 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that the appointment of the senior teachers were rejected. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as UPST on a regular basis from 04.06.2012, limiting the approval of the appointment from 01.06.2009 to 03.06.2016. It is also stated that Ext.P7 order was issued by the Government after considering all aspects.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. Ext.P7 is the order rejecting the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ext.P3(a) orders of approval granted to Smt.P.K.Sindhu and Smt.V.K.Sobha would reveal that approval has been granted from the initial date itself. The second reason stated is that appointment of the petitioner is in

¶31

a temporary vacancy. However, Exts.P2 and P4 speak otherwise. The next reason stated by the respondent is that the appointment of the petitioner was by an unapproved Manager. This Court in Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 725] and Manager, St.Mary’s H.S v. Beji Abraham [2002 (1) KLT 406] have held that the mere fact that the appointment of the Manager was subsequently found to be illegal or irregular could not take away the rights of the appointees. In that view of the matter, the said reason for rejection of approval cannot be countenanced.

¶32

WP(C) NO. 21553 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

In view of the discussion above, I am unable to sustain Ext.P7. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in light of the observations and directions and pass fresh orders with notice to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, and affected parties, if any, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶37

Sru

¶38

WP(C) NO. 21553 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21553/2021

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `1.6.2009 ISSUED TO SHRI. VINOD OF 5TH` `RESPONDENT SCHOOL.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `1.6.2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.6.2010 ISSUED BY` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.05.2020 ISSUED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `21.03.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE` `5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `2.9.2009 ISSUED TO SHRI GIRISH GOPINATHAN BY` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.07.2011 OF THE` `4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.5.2014 ISSUED BY` `4TH RESPONDENT (IN CHARGE).`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2011` `ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.08.2021 OF THE` `GOVT(FIRST RESPONDENT).`

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Deepa. N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa. N 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

Dia Therese Jose Vs University of Kerala

Dr Mohammed Shafi P K Vs Academy of Medical Sciences

Sri.Peethambaran K. Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Henry.P., Vs the Manager

Sr.Philominal Vs the Manager

Thengatt Ummer Hajee Vs State of Kerala