Disposed

Sr. Joshmi Joy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2022WP(C)/5851/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Assistant Educational Officer to implement the Director of General Education's order approving the petitioner's appointment as UPSA, rejecting the AEO's claim that he needed further clarification on a Government Order conditions affecting other appointments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 5th respondent (AEO) to implement the directions in Ext.P7 and pass orders within six weeks.

Sr. Joshmi Joy Vs 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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13THDAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA,1944
WP(C) NO. 5851 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SR. JOSHMI JOY
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O. GREGORY CHACKO, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISANT (MATHS),
ST. GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, MUTTAR, P.O. MUTTAR-689574
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (RESIDING AT S.H.CONVENT,
PAREL CHANGANACHERRY-686 601, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT).

¶7

BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 507.

¶13

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM-686 540.

¶14

6 THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, ARCHDIOCESE OF CHANGANACHERRY, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 101.

¶15

SMT.ANIMA, GP

¶16

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 5851 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that the order of appointment of the petitioner as UPSA from 01.06.2016 is legally valid and sustainable and for a further direction to the 5th respondent - AEO, Karukachal, to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 01.06.2016, in view of Ext.P7 order issued by the DGE.

¶21

Smt.Jenziya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed as UPSA with effect from 01.06.2016 onwards, against a regular vacancy that arose due to a promotion. When the approval was declined by the AEO and the same was confirmed by the DEO, the matter was taken up in revision and the DGE, after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, allowed the revision petition and issued Ext.P7 order. The learned counsel would refer to Ext.P7 and submit that the DGE had clearly held that the appointment of the petitioner was in an established vacancy and that no insistence can be made that a protected teacher should be appointed. However, in spite of the conclusive orders passed by the DGE, the AEO is refusing to implement the same.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 5851 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. In

¶25

paragraph No.4 of the counter, it is stated thus:-

¶26

“4. It is true that the appointment proposal of the petitioner has been resubmitted by the Corporate Manager, ArchDiocese of Changanassery through the newly introduced SAMANWAYA Software and original qualification certificate has been verified. It is further be submitted that the appointment has not been yet rejected by Assistant Educational Officer and still kept pending awaiting a clarification from Director of General Education regarding the conditions that ‘'Equal number of appointments made by the manager during the period from 2005-06 to 28.1.2016 in additional division vacancies should be made by protected teachers in further vacancies and if it was not done by the Manager is should be liable to strict punishment” in GO(Rt) NO.4181/2018/Gen.Edn dated 15.10.2018 and this fact that SA UPS Nedumanni is a newly upgraded UP School. Immediately on receiving the clarification subsequent steps will be taken.”

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

¶28

counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

From the counter affidavit, it is clear that the AEO has kept the matter pending on the ground that further clarification is required from the DGE with regard to the condition in G.O.(Rt.) No.4181/2018/Gen.Edn dated 15.10.2018 wherein it is stated that an

¶30

WP(C) NO. 5851 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

equal number of appointments made by the Manager from 2005-2006 to 28.01.2016 in additional division vacancies should be made by appointing protected teachers in future vacancies. However, I find that in Ext.P7, the DGE had specifically adverted to the question and unequivocally ordered that such a condition may not be imposed in the case of the petitioner herein. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court in the judgment dated 27.05.2022 in W.P.(C) No.9111 of 2021, had held that a subordinate authority cannot refuse to abide by the orders of the superior authority or question the decision of a superior authority. Such refusal was held to be, in effect, a denial of justice and destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice as held in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. West Coast Petroleum Agency and Others [2012(1) KLT 704] and Bhopal Sugar Industries v. Income Tax Officer (AIR 1961 SC 182).

¶33

In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the

¶34

part of the AEO in not expeditiously complying with the directions issued by the DGE. It is yet another matter if the order passed by the DGE was set aside or varied by any superior authority. However, such a situation has not arisen in the instant case.

¶35

WP(C) NO. 5851 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 5th respondent to implement the directions in Ext.P7 and pass orders, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶41

Sru

¶42

WP(C) NO. 5851 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5851/2020

¶45

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶46

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER AS 1.6.2016.

¶47

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/1514/2016/K.DIS.
DATED 17.7.2018 OF THE AEO.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/6818/2018/K.DIS.
DATED 14.11.2018 OF THE DEO.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SRI.
CYRIAC MATHEW DATED 1.6.2016 AND APPROVAL
RECORDED THEREON BY THE DEO, PUNALUR.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.ET.5/81483/2018/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 10.3.2019
OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (GENERAL).
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/1113/19/K.DIS.
DATED 22.3.2019 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.F5/89825/2018/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 15.7.2019 OF
THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC).
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER DATED
19.7.2019.

¶48

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :

¶49

EXHIBIT R5A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(Rt) NO.4181/2018/GEN.EDN
DATED 15.10.2018.

Sr. Joshmi Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sr. Joshmi Joy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sindhu P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Joby Joy Vs Muhammed Haneesh

P.Rajeesh Vs the State of Kerala

Manager, Bet Upper Primary School Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, Kpm Higher Secondary School, Vs the State of Kerala

The Corporate Manager Vs State of Kerala