Allowed

Saritha K.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/3513/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging government orders removing the petitioner from the post of Manager of a UP school. The order quashed the removal notices passed by authorities without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Orders Ext.P9 dated 31.1.2020 and consequential order dated 6.2.2020 were quashed. The matter was relegated to the Under Secretary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three mo

Saritha K.R. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 3513 OF 2020

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

SARITHA K.R. W/O. UDAYABHANU M., KEDARAM, PERUVATHOOR P. O., KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE - 673 620. BY ADVS. BASANT BALAJI S.M.PREM P.RAMACHANDRAN H.NARAYANAN

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

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

¶7

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 101. 4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MELADI, PAYOLLI, KOZHIKODE - 673 522. 5 RAGHAVAN K. HARITHA, NAMBRATHKARA, NADUVATHOOR, KOYILANDI - 673 330. BY ADVS. S.ABHILASH K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶8

OTHER PRESENT:

¶9

GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 3513 OF 2020

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner in short is that vide impugned orders Ext.P9 dated 31.1.2020 passed by the Government removing her from the post of Manager of Nambrathukara Upper Primary School owned by the 5 th respondent, the complainant, at her back, a consequential order Ext.P10 of the management was passed reiterating the order of the Government.

¶15

The relevant portion of the order Ext.P9 passed by the Under Secretary reads thus:

¶16

Sri.Raghavan, as per reference (2) has given memorandum that his daughter, Mrs. K.R Saritha was granted, exemption under KER chapter III rule 80, for functioning as Manager without property right, being the stitching teacher of Nambrathukara UP school, on his request, as approved by Asst. Educational Officer Meladi, and she has exceeded her power as manager, for some trace, and has requested for cancelling the exemption granted already.

¶17

In the above matter, exemption granted in detail vide order of the Director of General Education to Mrs. K.R Saritha, under K.E.R Chapter III (rule 8(1) as per reference No.(1), was thereby withdrawn.

¶18

On perusal of the aforementioned order, it is evident that complainant Raghavan, the owner of the property/5^th respondent had given a complaint regarding the petitioner for exceeding her

¶19

WP(C) NO. 3513 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

power as a Manager though there was no order of approval or appointment of the petitioner as Manager. I would not be dwelling on the merit and demerit of the matter as to whether the petitioner was actually appointed or approved by the trustees or the owner as Manager of the institution or not, but prima facie on perusal of the order impugned Ext.P9, it is evident that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Since the aforementioned order had the force of law, the institution could not have deviated from non compliance of the aforementioned order, resulting into its reiteration vide Ext.P10.

¶22

The authorities hearing the complaint at the behest of either of the complainant or any aggrieved party against the continuation or exercising of the power as a Manager of the institution are legitimately expected to apply the principles of natural justice. They cannot be permitted to pass irrational and irresponsible orders which would not go unnoticed from the scrutiny of the court as and when it is brought under challenge. This is what has been done. Accordingly, orders Ext.P9 dated 31.1.2020 and consequential order dated 6.2.2020 are quashed. Writ petition is allowed. The matter is relegated to the Under Secretary to take a call on the complaint of

¶23

WP(C) NO. 3513 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

the 5^th respondent with regard to the conduct or working of the petitioner as Manager of the College or exceeding the power in accordance with law by issuing notice and receipt of the complaint as well as by affording an opportunity of hearing either through virtual or physical mode. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 3513 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3513/2020

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE	REQUEST DATED 14.10.2005.
EXHIBIT	P1 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXT. P1.	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE 14.10.2005 SIGNE WELL AS THE 5TH	APPLICATION DATED D BY THE PETITIONER AS RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONE	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED R DATED 26.10.2005.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WITH 5TH RESPOND DATED 26.10.05.	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE	REQUEST DATED 30.12.06.
EXHIBIT	P5 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXT. P5	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE 4TH	LETTER DATED 28.10.05 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	ORDER OF THE 1ST 28.7.2007.
EXHIBIT	P7 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXT.P7	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 13.5.2018 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
EXHIBIT	P8 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXT.P8	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF

¶35

WP(C) NO. 3513 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.1.2020.

¶38

EXHIBIT P9 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P9 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2020 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT RE INDUCTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS MANAGER.

¶39

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶40

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2020.

¶41

EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.NIL.

¶42

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADI SUB DISTRICT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶43

EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADI SUB DISTRICT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶44

EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶45

EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶46

EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 6.2.2020 AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶47

EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Saritha K.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saritha K.R. 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

K.R. Asokan Vs Trichur Co. Operative Spinning Mills Ltd.

Royis Vs the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector

Mathew P.v., Vs Prince George

Yesudas Jacob @ Yesudas C.J., Vs Dr.E.K.Satheesh

Aleyamma Kuriakose, Vs Arun Kumar

T.V. Sukumaran Memorial Education Society Vs State of Kerala