Allowed

Dineesh G, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2022WP(C)/7887/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought intervention for the pending approval of his appointment as Lower Primary School Assistant. The Court directed the Government to expedite the revision petition filed by the school manager and dispose of it within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the revision petition within four months with opportunity of hearing.

Dineesh G, Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 21STDAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA,1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 7887 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

DINEESH G,
AGED 30 YEARS
SON OF P. GOPINATHAN,
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
NEERAD AMLP SCHOOL, MUTHUVALLUR,
KONDOTTY 673 638, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶11

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 638

¶12

5 THE MANAGER, NEERAD AMLP SCHOOL, MUTHUVALLUR, KONDOTTY 673 638, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH SR GP

¶14

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON21.10.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 7887 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner contends that he was appointed in the Neerad A.M.L.P. School as L.P.S.A. w.e.f. 15.07.2021 on the strength of Exhibit P1 order. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the rejection of the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner by Exhibit P4 order. The petitioner contends that challenging the same, Exhibits P5 appeal has been preferred by the Manager before the DEO, and by Exhibit P6 order, the same was also rejected. Being aggrieved, the Manager has preferred Exhibit P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent, which is stated to be pending. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief.

¶19

When this writ petition was taken up for consideration, Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that direction be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition submitted by the manager for approval of the appointment of the petitioner within a time frame.

¶20

Heard Smt. Mary Beena Joseph, the learned Senior

¶21

Government Pleader. In view of the order that I propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the 5th respondent if notice is dispensed with.

¶22

WP(C) NO. 7887 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this

¶25

writ 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 at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶26

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized representative and the 5th respondent.

¶27

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶29

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶32

avs

¶33

WP(C) NO. 7887 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7887/2022

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

`Exhibit`	`P1` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER DATED`	`APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE` `15.07.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P2` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `28.02.2019 OF THE`	`G.O(P) NO. 3/2019/G.EDN DATED` `GOVERNMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P3` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `08.03.2019 OF THE`	`CIRCULAR NO. J2/57/G.EDN. DATED` `GOVERNMENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `27.09.2021 OF THE`	`ORDER NO. C /13587/2021 DATED` `AEO, KONDOTTY.`
`Exhibit`	`P5` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `MALAPPURAM BY THE`	`APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DEO,` `MANAGER.`
`Exhibit`	`P6` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `21.12.2021 OF THE`	`ORDER NO. B1/196052/2021 DATED` `DEO, MALAPPURAM.`
`Exhibit`	`P7` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 1ST RESPONDEN` `08.01.2022`	`REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE` `T BY THE MANAGER DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P8` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `06.10.2021 OF THE` `ATTACHED TO THE O`	`ORDER NO. E4/234342/2021 DATED` `ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC)` `FFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`

Dineesh G, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineesh G, 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

S.Sreevidya Vs the State of Kerala

A.M.Deepa, Vs the State of Kerala

Mini.K.v Vs the State of Kerala

HUDA Beevi A.I Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh Kumar K.T. Vs State of Kerala

Anie Varghese Vs the State of Kerala