Dismissed

Cisly C.K. v. the Regional Officer, Cbse Chennai

Kerala HC9 Jun 2023WP(C)/3893/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought arrears of salary from CBSE. The Court held the petition not maintainable as CBSE cannot enforce personal service contracts. The petitioner was directed to approach the school management per byelaws instead. Petition disposed of without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach school management committee; writ petition closed without prejudice.

Cisly C.K. Vs the Regional Officer, Cbse… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3893 OF 2013

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

CISLY C.K. W/O SUBASH, PULIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISRICT.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOMOHANAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION PLOT NO.1630 A, J BLOCK, 16TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR WEST, CHENNAI-600040. 2 MEMBER SECRETARY CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092. 3 THE MANAGER MADAR ENGLISH SHCOOL, P.O. VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 614. 4 THE PRINCIPAL MADAR ENGLISH SCHOOL, P.O. VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISRICT-680614. BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED K.M.ABDUL MAJEED TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SMT.VINITHA.B.(SR.GP)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON 09.06.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C)No.3893 of 2013

¶14

¶15

MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,J

WP(C)No.3893 of 2013

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to consider Ext.P7 representation filed by her before the first respondent Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Chennai seeking arrears of salary due to her. The petitioner states that she was a teacher working in the Mather English School, Vadanappally, Thrissur, of which the third respondent is the Manager and the 4th respondent is the Principal.

¶22

This Court passed an order on 25.8.2021 requiring the CBSE to get instructions on whether any decision was taken on Ext.P7. A statement was filed on 6.10.2021 stating that after the receipt of Ext.P7 representation by them, they had sought the parawise comments from the 4th respondent. The management had also intimated that they had filed WP(C)No.3492 of 2011 against the petitioner and the educational authorities for having issued a notice to the school. The first respondent also submits in the statement that,

¶23

WP(C)No.3893 of 2013

¶24

¶25

though CBSE is an authority amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be used to enforce a contract of personal service, including all matters relating to the service that of the employee – including confirmation, suspension termination, etc. and this view is taken in the decision reported in Sommy Kunjappan v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others [2019(1) KLT 864] and has been followed in the judgment in WP(C)No.10980/2019 as well. In the instant case, it is clear that the writ petition cannot be said to be maintainable. It is also pointed out that Ext.P7 representation was preferred when the earlier affiliation byelaws of the CBSE were in force, which was later amended in 2018. As per the current CBSE byelaws, any teacher who is aggrieved in connection with their service conditions and pay can approach the school management of the respective school itself. The schools are also directed to comply with the norms given in the Acts/ Rules of the State/UT and of the CBSE regarding terms and conditions of service and other rules governing recognition/affiliation of the school and to strictly adhere to them as per byelaw 8.4.14. It is also a requirement of the school management committee to look into the welfare of teachers and employees of the school as per byelaw 8.4.3. The statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 are recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the school management committee in terms of the applicable byelaw, in which event the management will take a decision in

¶26

WP(C)No.3893 of 2013

¶27

¶28

accordance with law and the bye laws applicable, with notice to the petitioner, without delay.

¶29

The Writ petition is disposed as above

¶30

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS. C.P.,JUDGE

dlK 3.6.2023

WP(C)No.3893 of 2013

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3893/2013

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶36

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED BIL APPOINTING FROM 01.06.2001

¶37

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY ALL TEACHERS DATED 15.7.2008 TO RESPONDENT NO.4

¶38

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06.01.2010 BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.1.2010 BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.3

¶40

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.01.2012 TO PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BY PETITIONER.

¶41

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.7043/2012 DATED 30.03.2012 TO APPROACH CBSE

¶42

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.06.2012 BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.1

¶43

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PART OF MALAYALAM DAILY 'MATHRUBHOOMI' DATED 20.12.2012.

¶44

EXHIBIT P8: PHOTOCOPY COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 4.10.2004

¶45

EXHIBIT P9: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE DEGREE CERTIFICATES OF BSC AND BED OF THE PETITIONER

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶47

EXHIBIT R3A: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 07.08.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶48

EXHIBIT R3B: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARAWISR COMMENTS FURNISHED ON 26.10.2012 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶49

EXHIBIT R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2012

Cisly C.K. v. the Regional Officer, Cbse Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cisly C.K. v. the Regional Officer, Cbse Chennai

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

George Elias and Associates Vs Vimala .v.R

Maya P.Nayar Vs Jayasree S.

Lathika Vs the Vilalge Officer, Kottathara

Karthikeyan T.K. Vs the Commisioner of Central Excise & Cus.

Devarajan Vs Thanneermukkom Grama Panchayath

M/S Mecpro Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alangad Grama Panchayath