Partly allowed

K.S. Jyothismitha v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/4997/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued directions to the State Government to expedite consideration of revision petitions filed by the school manager and headmistress regarding the petitioners' appointment approvals, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is afforded within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on revision petitions within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the fifth r

K.S. Jyothismitha Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 3RDDAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA,1944
WP(C) NO. 4997 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

1K.S. JYOTHISMITHA
AGED 40 YEARS
WIFE OF SHINIL, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHEMATICS),
RAMA VARMA UNION HIGH SCHOOL, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-683 514, (RESIDING AT EATTUMMAL HOUSE,
CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 514).

¶6

2 NOBY KUNJAPPAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, RAMA VARMA UNION HIGH SCHOOL, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 514.

¶7

BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANNEXE-11
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

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

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAND-682 030.

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NEAR KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶13

5 THE MANAGER RAMA VARMA UNION HIGH SCHOOL, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 514.

¶14

SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

¶16

W.P. (C) No.4997 of 2022

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

W.P. (C) No.4997 of 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to the

¶22

respondents to grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners from 1.6.2010 onwards and for incidental reliefs.

¶23

According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was appointed in the Rama Varma Union High School, Cherai, as UPSA from 10.7.2006 onwards. The appointment of the 1st petitioner was approved with effect from the date of appointment. While continuing as such, the 1st petitioner was promoted against an additional post as HSA (Mathematics) with effect from 1.6.2010. However, approval was granted only with effect from 1.6.2011. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he was appointed with effect from 1.6.2009 as UPSA. Thereafter, he was appointed in the promotion vacancy of the 1st petitioner as UPSA with effect from 1.6.2010. His appointment was approved only with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner is a Rule 43 claimant and the 2nd petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant. Being aggrieved by the refusal to grant approval with effect from 1.6.2010, the Manager as well as the Headmistress are stated to have preferred separate petitions as Exts.P5 and P6 before the 1st respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed

¶24

¶25

W.P. (C) No.4997 of 2022

¶26

seeking directions.

¶27

When this writ petition was taken up for consideration,

¶28

Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that

¶29

the limited request at this stage is for issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P6 in an expeditious manner.

¶30

I have heard the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

In view of the limited nature of the relief sought, notice to the

¶32

5th respondent is dispensed with.

¶33

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶34

petition, the submissions made across the Bar, and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶35

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P5 and P6, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the 5th respondent and the petitioners or their authorized representative.

¶36

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

¶37

¶38

W.P. (C) No.4997 of 2022

¶39

expeditiously, in any event, within three months

¶40

from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment

¶42

before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶45

Sru

¶46

¶47

W.P. (C) No.4997 of 2022

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4997/2022

¶49

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶50

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `10.7.2006 OF THE`	`APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `1ST PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `B2/3549/12/K.DIS` `PETITIONER.`	`APPROVAL ORDER NO` `DATED 11.6.2012 OF THE 1ST`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER DATED`	`APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ND` `1.6.2009.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `B2/9197/13/K.DIS` `DISTRICT EDUCATIO`	`APPROVAL ORDER NO` `DATED 4.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE` `NAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE MANAGER BEFOR` `18.8.2016.`	`REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY` `E THE GOVERNMENT DATED`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE HEADMISTRESS` `22.7.2019.`	`REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY` `BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 14.10.2019.`	`JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 8635/2012`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `3.1.2020.`	`GO(RT) NO 45/2020/G.EDN DATED`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `25.1.2020.`	`GO(RT) NO 502/2020/G.EDN DATED`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 25.7.2017.`	`JUDGMENT IN W.A NO 2290/2015`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 28.6.2019.`	`JUDGMENT IN WA NO 2091/2018`

K.S. Jyothismitha v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S. Jyothismitha v. the 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

Fr.Saju.M.D. Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

Muhammed Asharaf K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Mohankumar.M.K Vs State of Kerala

Latha Joseph M., Vs the State of Kerala

Fr.Saju.M.D. Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

E Sundara Raj Vs the Manager