Disposed

Remya S v. District Educational Officer

Kerala HC23 Jun 2022WP(C)/6981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court consolidated three writ petitions involving school teacher appointment, retrenchment, and seniority disputes. It held that the issues could not be resolved on merits without determining the pending review petition by the Director General of Education, which was the threshold condition for all other decisions. Directions were issued for the DGE to decide the review and the AEO to act ther

What did the court decide?

DGE directed to decide pending revision expeditiously; AEO directed to approve proposals after DGE order; respondents directed to implement interim orders pending DGE decision.

Remya S Vs District Educational Officer — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944

¶2

WP(C) NO. 5688 OF 2022

¶3

 PETITIONER/S:

¶4

 FASNA K
 AGED 32 YEARS
 UPST, ERAVANNUR A.U.P.SCHOOL,
 NARIKKUNNI.P.O,
 AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.NOUFAL.M.S,,
 SHALIMAR HOUSE, PARANNUR.P.O,
 KOZHIKODE-673585.
 BY ADVS.
 JIJI THOMAS
 SMITHA MATHEW

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

 1 STATE OF KERALA
 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
 GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
 SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶7

2 THE DIRECT2022OR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶8

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE-673572.

¶10

5 THE MANAGER, ERAVANNUR A.U.P.SCHOOL, NARIKUNNI.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673585.

¶11

6 RAMISHA K P-UPSA, A.U.P.SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR, NARIKKUNNI.P.O, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673585.

¶12

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶13

¶14

 7 RAMYA.S,
 SHIVAGEETHAM, PERUMPOYIL,
 KAKKOOR KOZHIKODE-673585.

¶15

8 HEAD MASTER ERAVANNUR A.U.P.SCHOOL, NARIKUNNI.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673585.

¶16

 BY ADVS.
 TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
 P.NANDAKUMAR
 AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶17

 SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶18

 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
 ON 23.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).6981/2022, 11493/2022, THE
 COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944

¶23

 WP(C) NO. 6981 OF 2022

¶24

 PETITIONER/S:

¶25

 REMYA S
 AGED 30 YEARS
 W/O VIPIN VIJAYAN,
 SIVAGEETHAM, PERUMPOYIL, KAKKUR P.O.
 KOZHIKODE-673 613.

¶26

 BY ADVS.
 P.NANDAKUMAR
 AMRUTHA SANJEEV
 VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
 SHEMA ELIZABETH SCARIA

¶27

 RESPONDENT/S:

¶28

1 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 573.

¶29

2 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE-673 572.

¶30

3 THE MANAGER, ALP & UP SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR, NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585.

¶31

4 THE HEADMASTER, ALP & UP SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR, NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585.

¶32

5 K. FASNA, LPST, ALP & UP SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR, NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585.

¶33

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶34

¶35

 6 K.P.RAMISHA,
 UPST, ALP & UP SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR,
 NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585.

¶36

 BY ADVS.
 TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
 JIJI THOMAS
 R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
 SMITHA MATHEW

¶37

 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
 ON 23.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5688/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶39

¶40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶41

 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 THURSDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
 WP(C) NO. 11493 OF 2022

¶42

 PETITIONER/S:

¶43

 RAMISHA K.P.
 AGED 30 YEARS
 W/O. ANEESH, UPST, AUP SCHOOL,
 ERAVANNUR, NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 585
 BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶44

 RESPONDENT/S:

¶45

1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 004

¶46

2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 652

¶47

3 THE MANAGER,AUP SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR, NARIKKUNI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 585

¶48

4 K.FASNA AUP SCHOOL, ERAVANNUR, NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 585

¶49

5 REMYA.S. SIVAGEETHAM, PERUMPUYIL, KAKKUR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 613 BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶50

 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
 ON 23.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5688/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶52

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

W.P.(C.) No. 5688/2022 is filed by Smt. K. Fasna, contending that she is

¶55

working as an Upper Primary School Teacher (“U.P.S.T”) in the Eravannur A.U.P School. In the petition filed by her, she asserts that she is a TTC holder and was appointed by the 5th respondent, the Manager of the A.U.P School, Eravannur as a Lower Primary School Teacher (“L.P.S.T”) in an additional post. However, Smt. S. Ramya, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 6981/2022, filed a representation before the Assistant Educational Officer (“AEO”) that she was wrongfully retrenched by the Manager and that she was entitled to continue as U.P.S.T in the school. On the basis of the representation filed by Smt. Ramya, the AEO has issued Ext. P11 order reinstating Ramya holding that the retrenchment of the aforesaid teacher was illegal. Being aggrieved by Ext. P11 order, though an appeal was preferred before the District Educational Officer (“DEO”), the same was rejected upholding the decision taken by the AEO. Challenging the order passed by the DEO, Smt. Fasna preferred a revision petition before the Director General of Education (“DGE”), which is stated to be pending. The solitary prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance

¶56

of directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶57

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶58

¶59

2 W.P.(C.) No. 6981/2022 is filed by Smt. S. Ramya, who is the 7th respondent in W.P.(C.) No. 5688/2022, contending that she was appointed as U.P.S.T by the Manger of the A.U.P. School, Eravannur against a regular promotional vacancy. She asserts that after forwarding the proposal for approval, she was informed that the appointment has been canceled and the proposal for approval was withdrawn. After canceling the appointment, Smt. Fasna, the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 5688/2020 who was originally appointed as L.P.S.T was appointed in a place with retrospective effect as U.P.S.T. In pursuance of the representation filed by Smt. Ramya before the AEO, an order was issued directing the Manager to reinstate her forthwith. The appeal preferred by Smt. Fasna before the DEO was also rejected. However, challenging the order passed by the DEO, Smt Fasna has preferred a revision petition before the DGE. On the ground of the pendency of the revision petition, the Manager is not implementing the order passed by the DEO reinstating Smt. Remya. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that W.P.(C.) No. 6981/2022 is filed seeking directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate action against respondents 3 and 4 and also to direct them to comply with the directions in Exts P7 and P8.

¶60

W.P.(C.) No. 11493/2022 is filed by Smt. Ramisha K.P.,

¶61

contending that she was appointed on 12.06.2018 in the Head Teacher

¶62

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶63

¶64

Vacancy (“HTV”) by the Manager of the AUP School. However, her approval was rejected on the ground that a protected teacher has to be appointed in the said vacancy. While the petitioner was continuing without approval, she was shifted to the vacancy of A.K. Snehalatha with effect from 01.06.2020 when the said teacher was promoted as headmistress. The post of HTV was set apart for absorbing a protected teacher. The petitioner asserts that the manager has submitted a declaration based on G.O.(P) No 4/2021/G.Edn dated 06.02.2021 and therefore the petitioner, being the senior appointee, is entitled to get her appointment approved. However, the AEO is refusing to consider the proposal in view of the disputes between Smt. Remya and Smt. Fasna. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court seeking issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the proposal for approval with effect from 15.07.2021 in the light of the declaration submitted by the manager.

¶65

Since the petitioners assert entitlement for approval and inter se seniority issues are also involved, all these writ petitioners are taken up with the consent of all counsels and are disposed of by a common judgment.

¶66

I have heard the submissions advanced by Sri. R.K. Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 11493/2022, Smt. Jiji Thomas Pambackal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶67

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶68

¶69

in W.P.(C.) No. 5688/2022, Sri. P. Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 6981/2022 and the learned Government Pleader.

¶70

Insofar as the disputes between Smt. Fasna and Smt. Ramya are concerned, I find that a revision petition has already been filed by Smt. Fasna, challenging the order passed by the DEO (Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.5688/2022) and the same is pending before the DGE. Only after the resolution of the said issue can the disputes between the parties be resolved. In W.P.(C) No.11493/2022, this Court had passed an interim order directing the AEO to take a decision on the proposal for approval (Ext.P5(c) in W.P.(C) No.11493/2022), after considering whether the case of the petitioner can be considered independent of the disputes between Smt. Ramya and Smt. Fasna. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances, for a complete resolution of the issues involved, it would be proper for the DGE to take a decision on the revision petition filed by Smt. Fasna and thereafter based on the same, the AEO can take a decision on the request for approval of Smt. Ramisha K.P. This course is acceptable to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. After resolving the said issue, the issue with regard to the inter se seniority can be decided by the educational authorities.

¶71

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶72

¶73

In view of the discussion above, the following directions are issued:

¶74

a) There will be a direction to the DGE, before whom

¶75

the revision petition (Exhibit P14 in W.P.(C.) No. 5688/2022) is pending, to take an appropriate decision after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, the Manager, and other affected parties, if any.

¶76

b) A decision shall be taken expeditiously, in any event,

¶77

within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶78

c) After orders are passed by the DGE as directed above, the AEO, Koduvally, shall take up th e proposal for approval (Ext.P5(c) in W.P.(C.) No. 11493/2022) based on the appointment

¶79

order and take a decision with notice to the affected parties and the Manager. The decision as directed above shall be taken within a period of one month from the date on which the order passed by the DGE is produced before the said authority.

¶80

d) If no stay has been ordered by the DGE in the

¶81

revision petition filed by Smt. Fasna, the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C) No.6981/2022 shall implement Ext.P7 and P8 in the writ

¶82

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶83

¶84

petition. Orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. However, the said order shall be subject to the final orders to be passed by the DGE as directed above.

¶85

These writ petitions are disposed of.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶88

avs

¶89

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶90

¶91

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6981/2022

¶92

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶93

`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.7.2021 ISSUED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION FOR` `APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE` `PETITIONER`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.7.2021 ISSUED` `BY THE H.M IN CHARGE OF THE SCHOOL`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2021`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED` `28.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.8.2021 IN` `WPC NO 17300 OF 2021`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 ISSUED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.2.2022 ISSUED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.2.2022` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.2.2022 ISSUED` `BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`R5(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATING REPORT NO.` `35/CCPS/PTN/21/D OF THE CYBER CELL ISSUED` `TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2022`

¶94

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶95

¶96

 Exhibit R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
 BEFORE THE MANAGER BY THE PETITIONER DATED
 26/07/2021
 Exhibit R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
 BEFORE THE MANAGER BY THE PETITIONER DATED
 27/07/2021

¶97

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶98

¶99

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11493/2022

¶100

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶101

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF` `THE PETITIONER IN FORM 27 DATED` `12.06.2018`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT TO THE` `2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.` `05/2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED` `15.03.2021`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE PRINTOUT OF THE UPLOADED DETAILS OF` `THE PETITIONER I THE VACANCY FROM` `01.06.2020`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GO 9RT)` `NO.3287/2021/G.EDN DATED 06.07.2021` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5A`	`TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER OF THE` `MANAGER DATED 15.07.2021`
`Exhibit P5B`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT BY THE` `HEADMISTRESS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED` `15.07.2021`
`Exhibit P5C`	`THE PRINTOUT OF THE UPLOADED DETAILS OF` `THE PETITIOENR ON 15.07.2021 IN THE` `VACANCY AROSE ON 01.06.2020`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2021 IN` `FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER` `NO.02/JULY/AUPS-ESTT/202 OF THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2021`

¶102

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶103

¶104

 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
 NO.17300/2021 DATED 27.08.2021
 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B/1399/2021
 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2021
 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/6497/2021
 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
 05.02.2022

¶105

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶106

¶107

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5688/2022

¶108

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶109

`Exhibit P1`	`A COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `15-07-2019`
`Exhibit P2`	`A COPY OF THE RESIGNATION SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED` `31/05/2021`
`Exhibit P3`	`A COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDERS OF AEO` `DATED 16/06/2021`
`Exhibit P4`	`A COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DGE`
`Exhibit P5`	`A COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 7TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 15/07/2021`
`Exhibit P6`	`A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `DATED 15/07/2021`
`Exhibit P7`	`A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DETAILS AGAINST` `THE 7TH RESPONDENT IS PENDING BEFORE THE` `CYBER CELL DATED 13/9/2021.`
`Exhibit P8`	`A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF REVOCATION OF` `APPOINTMENT AGAINST THE 7TH RESPONDENT` `DATED 20/07/2021.`
`Exhibit P9`	`A COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE` `PETITIONER DATED 16-07-2021`
`Exhibit P10`	`A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE AEO DATED` `28/07/2021`
`Exhibit P11`	`A COPY OF THE REINSTATEMENT ORDER OF AEO` `DATED FOR THE 7TH RESPONDENT 16/11/2021`

¶110

 W.P.(C.) No. 5688 & Conn. Cases

¶111

¶112

`Exhibit P12`	`A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION` `NO.26420/2021 DATED 24/11/2021`
`Exhibit P13`	`A COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEO DATED` `05/02/2022`
`Exhibit P14`	`A COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DGE DATED` `11/02/2022 (WITHOUT ANNEXURE).`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R7(a)`	`True copy of judgment dated 27.08.2021 in` `WP(C)No. 17300 of 2021`
`Exhibit R7(b)`	`True copy of letter dated 15.03.2022` `issued by the District Police Chief,` `Kozhikode Rural`
`Exhibit R7(c)`	`True copy of revision petition dated` `13.03.2022 submitted by the 5th respondent` `before the 1st respondent`

Remya S v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remya S v. District Educational Officer

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

Sheeja T Vs Assistant Educational Officer

Jyothish Kumar.M. Vs State of Kerala

Indu.M.P Vs State of Kerala

Fasna K Vs State of Kerala

Raji Janardhanan, Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Narayanan, Vs the State of Kerala