Disposed

The Manager v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022WP(C)/8914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 1st respondent to consider a pending revision petition regarding employee appointments in an aided school after hearing all affected parties, reporting back within three months.

What did the court decide?

A direction was issued to the 1st respondent to consider the pending revision petition after hearing all affected parties and pass appropriate orders within three months.

The Manager Vs the 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

THURSDAY, THE 7THDAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA,1944
WP(C) NO. 8914 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THE MANAGER
ST.GEORGE'S HSS PUTTEKARA, MUNDUR, ANJUR,
THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 541.
BY ADVS.
T.T.MUHAMOOD(K/1026/1995)
A.RENJIT
V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
NAZEER HUZAIN.H
T.R.VISHNU

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DEO, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 001.
4SMT. STALY N.D.
OFFICE ATTENDANT, ST.GEORGE'S HSS, PUTTEKARA, MUNDUR,
ANJUR, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 541.

¶10

*ADDL R5 JEEWORTH JOS THALAKKOTTURE HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT P.O, VYLATHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679563.

¶11

*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7.7.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN WPC 8914/2022.

¶12

BY ADVS.
K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
S.MANU
R.MEENAKSHI (M-1290)
BEA MARY BENNY

¶13

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
07.07.2022ALONGWITHWP(C)NO.10315OF2022,THECOURTONTHESAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶21

THURSDAY, THE 7THDAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA,1944

¶22

WP(C) NO. 10315 OF 2022

¶23

PETITIONER/S:

¶24

JEEWORTH JOS T
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O T.A. JOS,
RESIDING AT THALAKKOTTURE HOUSE,
NHAMANGHAT P.O, VYLATHUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 679563.

¶25

BY ADVS.
K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
S.MANU
R.MEENAKSHI (M-1290)
BEA MARY BENNY

¶26

RESPONDENT/S:

¶27

1THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶28

2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.
3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 001.
4THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001.
5THE MANAGER,
ST. GEORGE'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PUTTEKKARA, ANCHUR, MUNDUR,
THRISSUR - 680 541

¶29

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

6STALY N.D
OFFICE ATTENDANT
ST. GEORGE'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PUTTEKKARA, ANCHUR, MUNDUR,
THRISSUR - 680 541.

¶32

SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶33

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
07.07.2022ALONGWITHWP(C)NO.8914OF2022,THECOURTONTHESAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

St. George’s HSS, Puttekara, is an aided school governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the same is managed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8914 of 2022.

¶38

On 1.6.2018, the Manager appointed Smt. Staly N.D., as a Full-Time Menial against a promotion vacancy which arose consequent to the promotion of Sri. Roy A.P. By Ext.P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent, the appointment was ordered to be approved with effect from 1.6.2018, if the same is otherwise in order. While so, the post of Office Attendant in the school became vacant on 17.7.2019, consequent to the promotion of Sri. A.P.Roy as Laboratory Assistant. Smt. Staly N.D. was ordered to be appointed to the post of Office Attendant as per Ext.P3 order. Later, the DEO, after considering the facts and circumstances, refused to grant approval on the ground that Smt. Staly is a graduate and hence, she cannot be considered for the post of a Full-Time Menial. Aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the DEO to grant approval, the Manager has preferred Ext.P5 revision petition before the 1st respondent and the same is pending.

¶39

Sri.Jeeworth Jose T, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2022 was appointed as FTM consequent to the promotion of Smt. Staly.N.D. as Office Attendant. He contends that he was admitted to duty with effect from 17.7.2019. The proposal for approval of his appointment was rejected by the

¶40

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

DEO on the ground that the promotion of Smt. Staly N.D. from the post of FTM to Office Attendant had not been approved and there is no clear vacancy to accommodate him. Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the DEO, the Manager preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director and the same was rejected. The same was taken up in revision and by order dated 17.9.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, it was ordered that the appointment of Sri. Jeeworth Jos can be approved as and when approval was granted to the promotion of Smt.Staly. His grievance is directed against Ext.P10 order (Produced in W.P.(C) No.10315/2022) issued by the DEO refusing to grant approval of his appointment. The petitioner contends that Smt. Staly N.D. is not eligible to be appointed as FTM or Office Attendant in Aided Schools and that there is no justification in refusing approval to the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that before passing Ext.P10 order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard.

¶43

As the decision in one case has implications in the other, both these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of by a common order.

¶44

I have heard Sri.T.T.Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8914 of 2022 and Sri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10315 of 2022 and the learned Government Pleader.

¶45

Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Government Pleader points out

¶46

that if the revision petition filed by the Manager produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)

¶47

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 20227

¶48

No.8914/2022 is heard and disposed of by hearing all concerned, the entire issues can be thrashed out. It is submitted that decision in the revision petition would have some reverberations over the right of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10315/2022.

¶49

I find considerable force in the course suggested by the learned Government Pleader. I am of the view that directions can be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition filed by the Manager (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No. 8914/2022) after hearing all affected parties so that the issues raised by both the petitioners can be resolved.

¶50

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions.

¶51

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition filed by the Manager (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No. 8914/2022) and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the party respondents and affected parties, if any.

¶52

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of

¶53

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶54

¶55

this judgment.

¶56

c) It would be open to the petitioners to produce a

¶57

copy of the writ petition along with the judgment

¶58

before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶59

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

sru

¶64

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶65

¶66

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8914/2022

¶67

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶68

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `01/06/2018, APPOINTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT (WITH` `TYPED COPY).`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EC4/12434/2019/DGE/K.DIS.` `DATED 29/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `(WITH TYPED COPY).`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 17/07/2019` `ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, APPOINTING THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT AS OFFICE ATTENDANT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B6/19375/2020 DATED` `27/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON` `02/03/2022.`

¶69

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶70

WP(C) NOS. 8914 & 10315 OF 2022

¶71

¶72

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10315/2022

¶73

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶74

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.` `M/JJM/106/2019 DATED 17-07-2019 ISSUED BY THE` `5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. B6/13691/2019` `DATED 29-12-2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3/210383/2020 DATED` `30-01-2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EC4/231616/2020 DGE` `KDIS DATED 17-09-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.21/2011/P&ARD DATED` `01-07-2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,` `PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (RULES)` `DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHANGE OF STAFF` `SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/19375/2020 DATED` `27-12-2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/13694/2019 DATED` `04-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P9`	`EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.` `B6-7293/21 DATED 10-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/13691/2019 DATED` `15-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`

¶75

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

The Manager v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager 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

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez M.K., Vs Suresh

Preetha Annie Korula Vs the State of Kerala

Jeeworth Jos T Vs 1. the State of Kerala

Renjitha R. Vs Kerala University of Health

Jithin Das. C.J Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences