Disposed

Jinse George, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2023WP(C)/2573/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding service regularization, the High Court refused to directly award salary arrears or declare the qualification sufficient. Holding that eligibility and exemptions are administrative matters for the Government, the Court set aside the rejection order to enable the petitioner to approach the department with a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 set aside; matter remanded to the 1st respondent Garden to consider fresh representation within four weeks; direction to pass orders within four months.

Jinse George, Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

JINSE GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS LOWER GRADE HINDI TEACHER, ST.SEBASTIAN'S U.P.SCHOOL, VEERPAD, VEERPAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT670 704, RESIDING AT POOVATHOLIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 704.

¶10

BY ADVS. P.M.PAREETH AISWARYA VENUGOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PUZHATHI HOUSING COLONY, KANNUR-670 002.

¶15

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY-670 101.

¶16

5 CORPORATE MAANGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCH DIOCESE OF THALASSERY, SANDESH BAHVAN, PB NO.71, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101.

¶17

BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶18

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶25

W.P.(C) No.2573 of 2022

¶26

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2023

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶29

“1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext P4 and quash the same.

¶30

A declaration to the effect that the Ext P5 title of Siksha Visarad acquired by the petitioner from Hindi Sahithya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad is sufficient qualification for the post of HST(Hindi) and the condition in Ext P6 that the title will have recognition if only the same was acquired from NCTE approved institution cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶31

A direction to the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HST(Hindi) for the period from 2-1-2013 to 31-3-2013 and to disburse the arrears of salary and allowances to the petitioner within a time frame. 4) To grant cost.

¶32

To grant such other reliefs this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

¶33

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022 4

¶34

The petitioner obtained Siksha Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahithya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, which according to the petitioner is a recognized as training qualification for the post of HST (Hindi). The petitioner started the course for Siksha Visarad in February, 2006 and the petitioner appeared for the examination in December, 2006. The results were published on 15.05.2007 and the original certificate was issued on 03.07.2007 as evident by Ext.P5. The petitioner joined duty as HST (Hindi) on 02.01.2013 based on Ext.P5 certificate. The District Education Officer, Thalassery rejected the proposal for approval of appointment as per Ext.P2. The petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent with appeal. The same was also rejected as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Government with a revision. The same is also rejected as per Ext.P4. The contention of the petitioner is that when the petitioner enrolled for training post of Siksha Visarad in February, 2006, the same was recognized as a qualification for HST (Hindi). Thereafter, it was de-recognized retrospectively from

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022 5

¶36

2006 by an order dated 31.10.2008. By Ext.P6, it was ordered that Siksha Visarad title acquired upto 31.12.2009 from NCTE recognized institution will have recognition. It is conceded by the petitioner that the institute from where the petitioner obtained the Siksha Visarad is not an NCTE recognized institution. NCTE recognition is a condition introduced for the first time in Ext.P6. The same cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner is the submission, because she acquired the title in 2006 as evident by Ext.P5. Hence, her appointment as HST (Hindi) from 02.01.2013 to 31.03.2013 has to be approved is the submission.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner is that the qualification is retrospectively changed and this Court in Ext.P7 judgment observed that such retrospectivity is not justifiable.

¶39

A perusal of Ext.P4 would not show that the point

¶40

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022 6

¶41

raised in this writ petition is not specifically considered by the

¶42

Government. Ext.P6 is a Government order issued on

¶43

09.12.2010. Whether any exemption can be granted to the petitioner is a matter to be decided by the Government. This Court cannot pass any orders. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will approach the Government with a fresh representation. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the Government to consider the same, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To facilitate the Government to pass fresh orders, Ext.P4 can be set aside.

¶44

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

¶45

1. Ext.P4 is set aside.

¶46

1. The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating his grievance raised in this writ petition before the 1^st respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

1. Once such a representation is received along with a

¶48

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

certified copy of this judgment with copy of this writ petition, the 1^st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶53

SKS

¶54

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2573/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/25786/2017 DATED 31.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM4/85088/DPI/K.DIS DATED 19.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.5112/2021/G.EDN DATED 15.11.2021.
Exhibit P4 A	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.88/98/GE DN DATED 17-03-1998
Exhibit P5	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03.07.2007 ISSUED BY HINDI SAHITHYA SAMMELAN, PRAYAG, ALLAHABAD.
Exhibit P5 A	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.28/2010/G.EDN. DATED 09.02.2010.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT WPC 6066 OF 2012.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MA DEGREE CERTIFICATE FOR HAVING PASSED MA DEGREE EXAM IN MAY 2013 WHICH WAS ISSUED ON 5/;5/2015 IS PRODUCED TOGETHER WITH THE MARK LIST DATED 10/7/2012 FOR MAY 2012 AND 5/4/2016 FOR MAY 2013.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VERIFICATION LETTER NO.335 DATED 25/11/2014 ISSUED BY

¶59

WP(C) NO. 2573 OF 2022

¶60

¶61

THE EDAMINATION DEPARTMENT OF HINDI SAHITHYA SAMMELAN ALLAHABAD. Exhibit P9 (a) A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P9. Exhibit P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.PHIL CERTIFICATE DATED 4/6/2019 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH THE MARK LIST (FIRST SEMESTER DATED 10/4/2018 AND SECOND SEMESTER DATED 27/3/2019),

Jinse George, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinse George, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Merin Abraham, Vs State of Kerala

Saritha R Vs the State of Kerala

V.v.Mohanraj Vs the State of Kerala

Prakasan.P Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar M., Vs the State of Kerala

Suhra K. M. Vs the State of Kerala