Allowed

The Manager v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2022WP(C)/2800/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order rejecting a delay condonation application for teacher appointments. The court quashed the order to enable the Director to decide the pending revision petitions and the delay application together. Time for decision extended.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order quashed; directed Director to consider revision petitions and delay application; time for decision extended by two months.

The Manager Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | 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 26THDAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA,1944
WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

THE MANAGER
A U P SCHOOL, PALLIKKAL (PALLAM), WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679532.

¶7

BY ADVS.
C.D.DILEEP
SHYLAJA VARGHESE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.

¶10

2DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THYCAUD P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680506.

¶13

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680582.

¶14

6 THE HEAD MISTRESS A U P SCHOOL, PALLIKKAL (PALLAM), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-679532.

¶15

SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SR. GP

¶16

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
26.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 order issued by the 3rd respondent by which the application submitted by the petitioner herein for condonation of delay was rejected and orders were issued directing the Headteacher of the School to cancel the appointment of the teachers and to dismiss them from service and to remove their names from the attendance register. Directions were also issued to the Headteacher not to allow the teachers to sign in the register.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he is the Manager of three schools lying within the jurisdictional limits of the Assistant Educational Officer, Vadakkanchery. It is contended that, on the strength of Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders, he has appointed a certain Smt.Sruthi C.S as UPST (General Science) and Smt.Meera K.R as UPST (Mathematics) in additional vacancies. Though the proposal was forwarded to the 5th respondent, the same was rejected by Exts.P2 and P2(a). The said orders were taken up before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent proceeded to consider the same and rejected the same by Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders.

¶22

The petitioner contends that challenging the above orders, he preferred Exts.P4 and P4(a) revision petitions before the DGE. It is further contended that when revision petitions were not taken up for

¶23

WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

consideration, he approached this Court and by Ext.P5 judgment, directions were issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the revision petition and take a decision within a period of three months. The learned counsel contends that no orders have been issued to date.

¶26

According to the petitioner, the reason given by the AEO as well as the DEO for rejection is the delay in submitting the documents relating to the appointment along with the proposal. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P6 application seeking to condone the delay conferred on the authority in terms of Rule 8(1) of Chapter XIVA of the KER. Instead of considering whether the delay is liable to be condoned, various directions have been issued, which according to the petitioner, cannot be sustained under law. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking directions.

¶27

When the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that challenging the orders issued by the AEO as confirmed by the DEO, the petitioner has approached the DGE as is evident from Exts.P4 and P4(a) and the said matters are pending consideration. Despite orders issued by this Court, the revision petitions have not been taken up and disposed of to date. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued for consideration of the matters pending before the Director and until orders are

¶28

WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

passed to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to the impugned order.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext.P6 application for condonation of delay was filed on 1.11.2021, much after the filing of Exts.P4 and P4(a) revision petitions. It is submitted that in view of the filing of the said application, the DDE was well within his powers to issue an order under Rule 8. According to the learned Government Pleader, the said order cannot be said to be illegal.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

¶33

through the records.

¶34

It appears that the petitioner, in his capacity as the Manager, had appointed two teachers. The proposal for approval has been rejected by the AEO as well as the DEO. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached the DGE and has preferred revision petitions. I find that this Court as early as 22.12.2021 had directed the DGE by Ext.P5 judgment to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner and to take a decision. However, it appears that no orders have been issued to date. It was during the pendency of the revision petition that the petitioner had approached the DDE and has filed an application under Rule 8 seeking to condone the delay. The said application was dismissed by Ext.P7 order, which is impugned herein.

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P4 and P4(a) revision petitions before the DGE, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the DGE to consider the petitions and take a decision along with the application for condonation of delay filed under Rule 8(1). To enable such an exercise to be completed, Ext.P7 order is required to be quashed.

¶38

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶39

a) In tune with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.30148/2021, the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 and P4(a) along with Ext.P6 application for condonation of delay. The 3rd respondent shall forward Ext.P6 application to the 2nd respondent to carry out the said exercise.

¶40

b) The 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4, P4(a) and P6 and take a decision strictly in accordance with law and with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent.

¶41

c) Ext. P7 order is quashed to enable the 2nd respondent to take a decision independently along with Ext.P4 and P4(a).

¶42

WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

d) To enable the 2nd respondent to conclude the

¶45

exercise, the time granted as per Ext.P5 judgment is extended by a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

sru

¶50

WP(C) NO. 2800 OF 2022

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2800/2022

¶53

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶54

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF` `SMT.SRUTHI C. S DATED 06.06.2019.`
`Exhibit P1(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF` `SMT.MEERA K .R DATED 06.06.2019.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL REJECTION ORDER` `NO.C/15013/2019 DATED 18.12.2019 OF SMT.SRUTHI` `C S, PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AEO.`
`Exhibit P2(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL REJECTION ORDER` `NO.C/15014/2019 DATED 18.12.2019 OF` `SMT.MEERA.K.R, PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `AEO.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 OF` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING APPEAL OF` `SMT.SRUTHI C.S.`
`Exhibit P3(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 OF` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING APPEAL OF MEERA K.` `R.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED` `16.09/2020 OF SRUTHI C.S.`
`Exhibit P4(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED` `16.09.2020 OF MEERA K R.`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2021 IN` `WPC NO.30148/2021.`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DDE DATED` `01.11.2021.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DDETSR/2817/2021-B4` `DATED 17.01.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.`

¶55

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

The Manager v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager 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

Divya Vijayan C., Vs State of Kerala

Keezhal U.P.School Vs the State of Kerala

M.V. Leeja Vs the State of Kerala

Susan Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

Prema S.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Bibeesh Babu @ Basith Ali Vs State of Kerala