Petitioner sought compassionate appointment as a teacher after her mother's death. Court found the application filed by petitioner was belated and dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of rejection orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 25THDAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA,1944
WP(C) NO. 6874 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
DIVYA VIJAYAN C.,
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. CHANDRIKA P., CHAITHRAM, THEVAKKARA, ARINALLOOR,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690538.
BY ADVS.
ANOOP.V.NAIR
RAMESH CHAND
DEVI P.
E.ADITHYAN
A.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
ROHAN MAMMEN ROY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013.4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, NEAR MODEL BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, THEVALLY, KOLLAM-691013.5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, AEO OFFICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-695001.6 THE MANAGER, KOVOOR UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MYNAGAPPALLY, ARINALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-6905723. BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD C.JOSEPH JOHNYSMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP
WP(C) NO. 6874 OF 2022
2
THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6874 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Smt.Chandrika P., the mother of the petitioner herein, was a UP School Teacher at Kovoor Upper Primary School, Mynagappally. She left for her heavenly abode on 22.02.2012. The petitioner was fully qualified for appointment as UP School teacher and asserts that she had submitted the application on 15.03.2012, which was well within time, before the Manager of the school, who happened to be the uncle of the petitioner herein. Later, when she came to understand that there was a change in management, the petitioner proceeded to submit another application on 20.12.2016. When no action was taken by the 6th respondent to adjudicate the claim, the petitioner approached this Court, and pursuant to the directions issued, the Manager issued Ext.P1 proceedings rejecting the claim. It was held by the Manager that the application was filed beyond time and it was not in proper form. The challenge raised by the petitioner before the educational authorities and finally before the Government was rejected, confirming the order passed by the Manager. This has led the petitioner to approach this Court with this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P4 and for a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 revision petition.
controverting the contentions advanced by the petitioner herein. In the
WP(C) NO. 6874 OF 2022
4
counter affidavit, it is reiterated that the petitioner had not acquired the qualification required for the post of UPST as on 15.03.2012. It is further stated that the application for Compassionate Appointment was filed only on 20.12.2016, and the same is highly belated as her mother had expired on 22.02.2012, and the petitioner had attained majority on 09.04.2011.
and Others [2012 (7) SCC 248], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as follows in paragraphs 18 and 19:-
“18. The High Court appears to have confused an application required to be filed within the period stipulated for the purpose with the availability of a vacancy against which such an application could be considered by the Manager. These were two distinctly different matters. What was important was the
WP(C) NO. 6874 OF 2022
5
making of an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the period stipulated for the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is available had nothing to do with the making of the application itself.
Undisputedly there are no records before this Court to show that the petitioner has filed the application within the time of two years as stipulated from the date on which the death of her mother arose, as the petitioner had attained majority on 09.04.2011. The entire aspects of the matter were considered by the educational authorities while rejecting the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any ground for interfering with the impugned orders.
This writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
Sru
WP(C) NO. 6874 OF 2022
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6874/2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 |
THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6THRESPONDENT IN ORDER NO. UPS/K/CE-1/2018 DATED12/10/2018. |
|---|---|
Exhibit P2 |
THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/669/2019/K.DISDATED 31/05/2019 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
Exhibit P3 |
THE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED UNDER CHAPTERXIVA RULE 92 DATED 26/07/2021. |
Exhibit P4 |
THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GO.198/2022/G.EDN. DATED 10/01/2022 ISSUED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
Exhibit P5 |
THE COPY OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ORDER TOTHE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED DATED17/09/2013. |
Exhibit P6 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY UNDER THE RIGHT TOINFORMATION DATED 14/3/2022. |
Exhibit P7 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE5TH RESPONDENT DATED 1/4/2022. |
Exhibit P8 |
THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 6THRESPONDENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE SCHOOLOBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION DATED3/12/2013. |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS |
|
Exhibit R6(a) |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLEHIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13.11.2020 IN WP(C)NO. 22571/2014. |
Exhibit R6(b) |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDERNO.UPS/K/CE-1/2018 DATED 12TH OCTOBER 2018 OFTHE MANAGER UPS KOVOOR. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite filing the application belatedly.
Whether the time bar applies given the petitioner attained majority after the death of the breadwinner.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for compassionate appointment should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sajeesh Babu v. StateFollowed¶30
Sajeesh Babu v. State [1996 (2) KLT 542]
Manager, Parli High School v. NarayananDistinguished¶30
Manager, Parli High School v. Narayanan [2002 (3) KLT 912]
Shreejith L v. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and OthersReferred¶32
Shreejith L v. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others [2012 (7) SCC 248] · Who else cites this
DIVYA VIJAYAN C.
STATE OF KERALA
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court