Dismissed

Chandrika.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2023WP(C)/1061/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a teacher's seniority and pension claims based on rank versus date of birth. A direction was issued to the respondent to expedite the pending revision petition instead of granting a final declaration at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the pending revision petition and pass orders within two months.

Chandrika.S Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

CHANDRIKA.S HSST (COMMERCE) NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VECHOOR, THALAYAZHAM, KOTTAYAM , PIN – 686607

¶9

BY ADVS. M.A.FAYAZ M.VISHNUPRIYA C.B.ABHINAVA R.MURALEEKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014

¶13

3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION O/O THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, VAYASKAKUNNU, KOTTAYAM – 686001

¶14

4 GENERAL MANAGER & INSPECTOR OF NSS SCHOOLS PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERRY , PIN – 686102

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

BY ADV SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶19

FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner claims that after following and constituting a proper

¶24

selection procedure, she and ten other teachers were chosen as HSSTs

¶25

(Junior) Commerce. On October 1, 2005, all of the teachers were given appointments, with the petitioner being listed as 10th in the rank list.

¶26

According to the petitioner, going by Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rule, the petitioner was the senior most among the 11 teachers.

¶27

The petitioner states that when vacancies in HSST (Junior) Commerce arose under the management, many of the juniors of the petitioners were granted promotions. The petitioner came to realize that the seniority of the teachers appointed on 01.10.2005 was based on the rank given at the time of selection and not on the basis of the date of birth prescribed. The petitioner asserts that the classification of seniority in the manner above is illegal. The petitioner would refer to Ext.P7 and specifically to the order dated 28.02.2020 Acd.A3/107134/2018/HSE to substantiate her contention. It is on these assertions that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

(i) To call for the records leading to issuance of Exts.P5 order of the 2nd respondents, and set aside the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.

¶31

(ii) To declare that petitioner being the senior most teacher among the HSST (Jr) Commerce appointed w.e.f.01.10.2005 by the 4th respondent petitioner is to be treated as the senior most among the 11 HSST (Jr) Commerce teachers in accordance with Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A KER.

¶32

(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 Revision Petition forthwith or within a time frame to be specified by this Hon’ble Court.

¶33

(iv) To direct the respondents 1 to 3 to sanction and disburse the pension and other terminal benefits due to the petitioner by reckoning that petitioner was promoted as HSST (Jr) Commerce from the year 2009 onwards.

¶34

When the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri. Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the pendency Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1st respondent, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass orders expeditiously as the petitioner is due to attain superannuation on 31.03.2023.

¶35

In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the assertion made by the petitioner by relying on Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rule cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this Court in Girija Kumar S. and Another v. Rajith K.G. and Ors. [2019 (4)

¶36

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

KLT 315], wherein it was held that there is no Rule available in Chapter XXXII

¶39

as is there in Chapter XIVA, which prescribes age to be reckoned for the purpose of fixing seniority among persons who are appointed on the very same day. It is however submitted that the learned Government Pleader has no objection in issuing directions to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 in accordance with the law.

¶40

In response, Sri. M.A. Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader would have no application in the facts and circumstances

¶41

of the instant case. As the limited request of the petitioner is for consideration of Ext. P6, in accordance with law, necessary directions can be issued.

¶42

In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, no

¶43

prejudice would be caused to the 4th respondent if notice is dispensed with.

¶44

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶45

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:

¶46

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on Ext.P6

¶47

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

¶48

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶49

¶50

virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorized representative and the 4th respondent.

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

¶58

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1061/2023

¶61

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶62

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.TRO/7/4712/06 HSE DATED 02.08.06 ISSUED BY THE RDD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACD.A3/86270/ 2017/HSE DATED 06.02.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A5/4669/2019/RDD/HSE/KTM DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.02.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.B4/197777/ 2021/HSE DATED 03.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.12.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/879/2021 DATED 02.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT GENERAL MANAGER

¶63

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Chandrika.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika.S 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

Swapna.S Vs State of Kerala

Rajasree A.V Vs the State of Kerala

Shamila Farhath K Vs the State of Kerala

Jaimol Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh.S Vs the Director

Sijo v. Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala