Partly allowed

P.Rajeesh v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022WP(C)/5591/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed government respondents to expeditiously decide on the petitioner's pending compassionate appointment representation and afford an opportunity of hearing, fixing a two-month timeline for the order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd and 7th respondents to consider pending representations with a hearing within 2 months; defendant to disburse salary within 4 weeks if approved.

P.Rajeesh Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 12THDAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA,1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 5591 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

P.RAJEESH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O JANARDHANAN,
THAROLTHAZHAM, PAROPPADY, MALAPARAMBA
P.O.KOZHIKODE-673 009

¶6

(FULL TIME MENIAL DEVASWOM BOARD HIGH SCHOOL,
KANGAZHA)

¶7

BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶10

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

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,

¶12

2 (FORMERLY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691

¶14

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101

¶15

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶16

¶17

THE CORPORATE MANAGER/SECRETARY.
5
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS, DEVASWOM
BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
011.

¶18

SOORAJ V. NAIR,
6
OFFICE ATTENDANT, DEVASWOM BOARD HIGH SCHOOL,
KANGAZHA-686 541

¶19

ADDL. R7. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
7OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANJIRAPPALLY-686506

¶20

SMT ANIMA M GP

¶21

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
12.07.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The wife of the petitioner, Smt. R. Girija, was an approved High School Assistant (Natural Science) and was working in the Devaswom Board High School, Vamanapuram, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent. On 27.07.2018, she passed away while in service. Exhibit P1 order was issued by the 5th respondent on 22.10.2019, as per which a decision was

¶26

taken by the Devaswom Board to grant employment assistance to the petitioner under the Compassionate Appointment scheme invoking Rule 51B Chapter XIV A of the KER.

¶27

It is contended that one Sri. B. Sandeep, who was working as Office Attendant in the Devaswom Board High School, Thrikkariyoor, was promoted and appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the Devaswom High School, Vamanapuram. In the resultant vacancy, one Sooraj V. Nair, the 6th respondent herein, who was working as a Full Time Menial in the Devaswom Board High School, Kangazha, was promoted and appointed as Office Attendant in the Devaswom Board High School, Thrikkariyoor. In the vacancy that arose in Devaswom Board High School, Kangazha, the petitioner was appointed as Full-Time-Menial. According to the petitioner, as the promotion appointment of Sri. Sandeep as Physical Education Teacher has been approved; as there is a

¶28

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶29

¶30

well-established vacancy, the appointment of Sooraj P. Nair will also have to be approved and consequently that of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Exhibit P5, the request for approval of the appointment of Sri. Sooraj V Nair was rejected due to the failure on the side of the Manager to furnish certain documents. In view of the above, the petitioner has been working without salary for the past couple of years.

¶31

Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Exhibit P9 representation before the 3rd respondent and Exhibit P10 representation before the Additional 7th respondent, which are stated to be pending.

¶32

It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of directions to the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to initiate expeditious steps to approve the appointment of the petitioner, in terms of Exhibits P1 and P2 as Full-Time-Menial in the Devaswom Board High School, Kangazha and for incidental reliefs.

¶33

When the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 05.07.2022, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that it was in

¶34

view of the revision petition filed by the Manager challenging Exhibit P5 that no action was taken on the representations filed by the petitioner herein, pending before the 3rd respondent and additional 7th respondent.

¶35

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶36

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent on

¶38

instructions submitted that the revision petition filed by the Manager has been disposed of by the DGE.

¶39

Sri Subhash Chand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶40

submitted that in view of the disposal of the Revision Petition filed by the manager, nothing prevents the official respondents from taking up Exhibit P9 and P10 and in passing expeditious orders.

¶41

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar, and the facts and circumstances, I

¶42

am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶43

a) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to

¶44

take up Exhibit P9 and the Additional 7th respondent to take up Exhibit P10 representations filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after affording

¶45

an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

¶46

virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized representative and the affected parties.

¶47

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶48

¶49

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

¶50

expeditiously, in any event, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

c) If approval is granted, the respondents ensure

¶52

that the salary and allowances due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within a further period of four weeks. .

¶53

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶55

avs

¶56

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5591/2022

¶59

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶60

TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEARING ROC NO

¶61

Exhibit P1 2681/19 EDN DATED 22.10.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO 5 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEARING ROC NO

¶62

Exhibit P2 2681/19/EDN DATED 13.3.2020 THUS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO 18/19/EDN DATED

¶63

Exhibit P3 10.3.2020 OF RESPONDENT NO 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER B6/12024/2019 DATED

¶64

Exhibit P4 28.11.2019 OF RESPONDENT NO 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER B3/16983/2020 DATED

¶65

Exhibit P5 7.10.2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO 3 TRUE COPY OF THE RULING REPORTED AS SMT. SUSHMA

¶66

Exhibit P6 GOSAIN AND OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 9AIR 1989 SC 1976) TRUE COPY OF THE RULING REPORTED AS MANAGER AIDED

¶67

Exhibit P7 U.P SCHOOL AND ANOTHER VS T.N MAHESH AND ANOTHER (2004 KHC 1614) TRUE COPY OF THE RULING REPORTED AS BRIJITHAMMA

¶68

Exhibit P8 VS STATE OF KERALA (1990 KHC 96)

¶69

W.P.(C.) No. 5591 of 2022

¶70

¶71

TRUECOPYOFTHESAIDREPRESENTATIONDATED
Exhibit P924.1.2022SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONERBEFORE
RESPONDENT NOS 3
TRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED24.1.2022
Exhibit P10SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHEDISTRICT
EDUCATIONALOFFICER,KANJIRAPPALLY.WITHOUT
ANNEXURES

P.Rajeesh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajeesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lijo C.F Vs State of Kerala

Sreevidya N. Vs the State of Kerala

Srinivasan.a.T. Vs the District Educational Officer

Sindhu P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Joby Joy Vs Muhammed Haneesh

Preethi M Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala