Partly allowed

Prabhath Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Oct 2022WP(C)/2425/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a regular appointment proposal. The High Court directed the District Educational Officer to decide the petitioner's representation, ensuring no obstruction from prior orders and affording a hearing to the petitioner and the school manager.

What did the court decide?

Directs the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P7) with notice to all parties, untrammeled by the order of rejection (Ext.R4(a)), and pass orders within two months.

Prabhath Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12THDAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 20TH ASWINA,1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2425 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PRABHATH BALAKRISHNAN
OFFICE ATTENDANT, VIDYA MANDIRAM U.P. SCHOOL, ALAPURAM,
ELANJI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 665,
RESIDING AT NEDUMATTATHIL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O.,
VELLOOR, PIN-686 609.

¶8

BY ADVS.
S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.S.P.BALAKRISHNA PILLAY
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
SHRI.KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 661.

¶13

4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 662.

¶14

¶15

W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2021

¶16

5MANAGER
VIDYA MANDIRAM U.P. SCHOOL, ALAPURAM, ELANJI P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 665.

¶17

6SANTHOSH C.G.
HEADMASTER, VIDYA MANDIRAM U.P. SCHOOL, ALAPURAM, ELANJI
P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 665.

¶18

BY ADVS.

¶19

M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY

¶20

SMT.ANIMA, GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2021

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Sri. Prabhath Balakrishnan, the petitioner herein, states that he entered service as Office Attendant in Vidya Mandiram U.P School, Alapuram. The 6th respondent is said to be the Headmaster of the School. The petitioner states that his appointment was approved on a daily wage basis. He asserts that from the academic year 2018-19, the school became economical. His grievance is that the appointment was not converted to one on a regular basis. He also asserts that the Manager misinterpreted the Departmental authorities that the petitioner was absent from duty from 16.3.2019 onwards, despite the fact that the petitioner had signed in the attendance register up to 16.3.2020. The petitioner contends that stating all these aspects, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 3rd respondent. However, no action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as a regular appointee on scale of pay in the post of Office Attendant with effect from 1.6.2018 onwards with all consequential service and monetary benefits and for other ancillary reliefs.

¶26

In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Office Attendant from 24.05.2014

¶27

¶28

W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2021

¶29

onwards against the retirement vacancy of Sri.P.G.Vijayan, who retired from service on 31.3.2010. It is stated that the appointment proposal submitted by the Manager was incomplete and supporting documents were also not produced. The official respondents directed the Manager to correct the defects. However, none of the required documents were submitted before the authorities concerned. It is stated that the Manager had preferred an appeal before the DEO; however, it was due to the failure on the part of the Manager to produce the documents that the appeal was rejected.

¶30

I have heard the submissions of Sri.Peter Jose Christo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Anima, the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

From the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it appears that the Manager of the school had in fact submitted an appointment proposal relating to the petitioner as Office Attendant from 6.6.2019 onwards on a regular basis through the SAMANWAYA portal. However, it appears that the appointment proposal submitted by the Manager was incomplete. It is also mentioned in the counter that the official respondents did not issue any directions to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents relating to his appointment. It was in the said circumstances that the AEO had rejected the proposal. I find that challenging the order of rejection, the Manager preferred an appeal before the DEO. However, in the order of rejection dated

¶32

¶33

W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2021

¶34

1.10.2020 produced as Ext.R4(a), it is evident that the Manager informed that no notice be served on the petitioner and that there is no reason to pursue the appeal. It was in the said circumstances that the appeal preferred by the Manager was rejected. The Manager had also failed to produce the documents which were to accompany the proposal. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to substantiate his claim for appointment.

¶35

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the DEO, which is pending consideration. His request is that untrammelled by the findings and observations in Ext.R4(a), the DEO be directed to consider the same and take a decision.

¶36

Though notice was issued to the respondents 5 and 6 and the same was served, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel when the matter was taken up for consideration. I find that by an interim order dated 17.3.2021, this Court had directed the respondents 5 and 6 not to initiate any steps to fill up the post of Office Attendant in the 5th respondent school. The said interim order is still in force. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that directions can be issued to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and take a decision untrammeled by any of the observations in Ext.R4(a).

¶37

¶38

W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2021

¶39

Resultantly, while disposing of this writ petition, the following

¶40

directions are issued:

¶41

a) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and take a decision with due notice to the petitioner as well as the Manager and all other affected parties, if any, and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

b) While taking a decision on Ext.P7, the 3rd respondent shall not be bound by Ext.R4(a) as the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶43

c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of

¶44

the writ petition along with this judgment before the

¶45

3rd respondent to ensure compliance.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶48

Sru

¶49

¶50

W.P. (C) No.2425 of 2021

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2425/2021

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.F(5)/45690/2015/DPI/K.DIS DATED 25.10.2017.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F(5)/63852/2016` `DATED 15.12.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B6/3621/2020 DATED` `21.8.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER THAT CONTAINED` `EXT.P5`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.9.2020` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED .09.2020` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED` `11.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`RESPONDE`	`NTS`	`EXHIBITS :`
`EXHIBIT`	`R4A`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/192624/20 DATED` `1.10.2020.`

Prabhath Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhath Balakrishnan 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

Valsa a X Vs State of Kerala

Ashish G.Nath Vs State of Kerala

Sujith P.S Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Rani S. Vs the State of Kerala

Anjana K. Vs the Director of General Education

The Principal, St. Teresa'S College Vs Mahatma Gandhi University