Allowed

State of Kerala, v. Shareef T.E.

Kerala HC9 Apr 2024RP/109/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a review petition filed by the State against a decision affirming a benefit regarding departmental service records. The Court recalled the impugned judgment due to the writ petitioner's failure to disclose material facts about an earlier judgment determining his date of entry into service.

What did the court decide?

The judgment under review is recalled, the review petition is allowed, and the writ appeal is restored to file.

State of Kerala, Vs Shareef T.E. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

RP No.109 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶8

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶9

RP NO. 109 OF 2024

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WA NO.1136 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT

¶11

OF KERALA

¶12

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANTS IN THE WRIT APPEAL:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶15

3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004

¶16

4 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695014 BY SMT.DEVISHRI.R, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT APPEAL:

¶18

1 SHAREEF T.E., S/O. EBRAHIM T.A., WORKING AS HSST ECONOMICS, SIR SYED HSS, KARIMBAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT THECHIYODAN HOUSE, MAMPOIL, CHUNGATHARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679334

¶19

2 THE MANAGER,

¶20

RP No.109 of 2024

¶21

¶22

SIR SYED HSS, KARIMBAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670142

¶23

SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR.

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

RP No.109 of 2024

¶26

¶27

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ

¶28

RP No.109 of 2024

¶29

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2024

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Mohammed Nias.C.P.J.

¶32

The State of Kerala and its officials have filed this review petition feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.7.2023 in WA No.1136/2023, which dismissed the writ appeal filed by them affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge that allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.

¶33

The first respondent filed WP(C)No.8292/2021 challenging Ext.P5 order which rejected the request made by him for correction of his date of birth in the service records. Learned single Judge found that the application for correction of date of birth was validly made on 3.6.2018 and as the date of entry into service, pleaded in the writ petition was 3.6.2013, the same was within five years from the entry into service. Accordingly, finding that the application preferred by the

¶34

RP No.109 of 2024

¶35

¶36

petitioner was within time, the impugned order was quashed. The State and its officials filed the appeal in which the judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed.

¶37

The present review petition states that the writ petitioner did not mention the filing of a writ petition by him for changing the date of approval/entry into service which was allowed. He had filed WP(C)No.7502/2214 and by judgment dated 1.6.2015 this Court allowed the writ petition along with the connected matters and found that the writ petitioner and others therein were entitled to approval of their appointment with effect from the date of their appointment in the school. The said direction in the writ petition was complied with by the Government on 4.8.2018. This fact was not disclosed in the writ petition. The learned single Judge had taken the date of entry into service as 3.6.2013 and the same was upheld in the writ appeal as well. Going by the judgment in the case filed by the writ petitioner himself, the date was changed to 11.3.2013 in which case the application preferred by the petitioner was clearly barred. That apart, the State also alleges that the first respondent had manually changed the date in Ext.P5. It is based on these averments that the review petition is filed stating that on account of the above suppression, the impugned judgments were delivered.

¶38

We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing

¶39

RP No.109 of 2024

¶40

¶41

for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent-writ petitioner.

¶42

True, the Government did not point out the above facts either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal, but we feel that the writ petitioner had a duty to disclose all these relevant aspects that certainly had a bearing in the adjudication. Had all these been brought to the notice of this Court, the result might have been different. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the judgment under review is to be recalled and the review petition allowed.

¶43

The writ appeal is restored to file. Post after Vacation.

¶44

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶45

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE

dlk 11.4.2024

RP No.109 of 2024

APPENDIX OF RP 109/2024

¶50

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶51

ANNEXURE I ANNEXURE I. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.7502/14. ANNEXURE II ANNEXURE II.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A8/4978/2018/K.DIS DATED 04.08.2018. ANNEXURE III ANNEXURE III. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.263/P2/2018/G.EDN DATED 27.03.2020. ANNEXURE IV ANNEXURE IV. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.06.2020. ANNEXURE V ANNEXURE V. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.B4/228697/2022/HSE DATED 18.08.2023 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION.

State of Kerala, v. Shareef T.E.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala, v. Shareef T.E.

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

Marian College, Kuttikanam (Autonomous) Vs Sri.Ajith Fredjeev Dinakarlal

K. Neelakandan Vs Mini Antony IAS

Varghese Alias K.M. Varghese Vs Abubaker

Swathy Ganesh Vs G.Venkataramanan

Rasik M Vs the District Collector

Haris P. P Vs District Collector