Disposed

The Manager v. State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Kerala HC13 Jan 2023WP(C)/1150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order disposed of a writ petition challenging a Government order rejecting a request for retrospective effect of a post sanction and approval of appointment. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider pending review petitions and pass appropriate orders expeditiously after affording an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 1st respondent to consider pending review petitions and pass appropriate orders within four months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

The Manager Vs State of Kerala Represented by the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 13THDAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA,1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 1150 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

1THE MANAGER
AGED 64 YEARS
DON BOSCO SPEECH AND HEARING HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KARAKUNDU, THIRUVATTOOR P.O,
KANNUR DIST, PIN - 670502

¶6

2SR. NIMMY MATHEW
AGED 42 YEARS,
ASSISTANT TEACHER,
DON BOSCO SPEECH AND HEARING HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KARAKUNDU, THIRUVATTOOR P.O, KANNUR DIST. PIN : 670502
RESIDING AT 'UPAVIBHAVAN CONVENT', KARAKUNDU,
THIRUVATTOOR P.O, KANNUR DIST. , PIN - 670502

¶7

BY ADV MURALI PALLATH

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVT.
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT
(ANNEX II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. , PIN - 695014

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THANA P.O, KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670002

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670141

¶13

SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶14

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON13.01.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1150 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The 1st petitioner is the Manager of Don Bosco Speech and Hearing Higher Secondary School, and the 2nd petitioner is an Assistant Teacher (Primary) appointed by the 1st petitioner. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P11 order issued by the Government by which the request made by the 1st petitioner to grant retrospective effect to the new post sanctioned from 2011 onwards and to grant approval to the appointment of the 2nd petitioner was rejected.

¶19

According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner has been working as an Assistant Teacher in the school since 01.06.2011 against an anticipated post. The petitioners state that in identical circumstances, the Government has issued Ext.P5 order sanctioning seven posts of Assistant Teacher in the ‘Iritty Chavara Nivas Special School for Deaf’ for the academic year 2011-2012. The petitioners assert that they have preferred Exts. P13 and P14 review petitions, respectively, before the 1st respondent, and the same is pending.

¶20

Sri. Murali Pallath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that before passing Exts. P9 and P11 orders, no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider Exts. P13 and P14 review petitions and take a decision in accordance with law.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 1150 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

¶24

Pleader.

¶25

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶26

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:

¶27

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P13 and 14, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioners herein or their authorized representatives.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

avs

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1150 OF 2023

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1150/2023

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

`Exhibit1`	`TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 338/05/G. EDN. DATED` `27.08.2005`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. R. DIS. B5/5002/ 10 DATED` `30.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL` `OFFICER, KANNUR`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2011` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.05.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE` `1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.3297/2012/ G.EDN. DATED` `11.07.2012`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. B4/19752/15 DATED 11.02.2016` `OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.11.2017` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02.07.2018` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.240/2021/ G.EDN. DATED` `28.10.2021`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.11.2021` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF GOVT. LETTER NO. R2/415/ 2021 - G.EDN.` `DATED 01.11.2022`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B5/32336/ 2021 DATED` `17.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 30.12.2022` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 31.12.2022` `SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER`

The Manager v. State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Govt.

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

Jaimol Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh.S Vs the Director

Sijo v. Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs a J Honey Sweet

Asha Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Latha R. Vs the Registrar