Disposed

R.Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/13798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the non-approval of the petitioner's appointment as Full Time Menial and his non-reinstatement. The Court directed the 5th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for accommodation in regular vacancies within three months and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the 5th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2018 for accommodation in regular vacancies within three months from receipt of judgment copy.

R.Rajesh Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13798 OF 2016

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

R.RAJESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.RAJASESKHARAN
PILLAI, BINDU NIVAS, CHIKKODU, KADACKAL,
PULLUPANA PO, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS DULY
CONSITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SR.
RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE
PURUSHOTHAMANA PILLAI, BINDU NIVAS, CHAIKKODU,
KADACKAL, PULLUPANA PO, KOLLAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH
SRI.M.V.SABU

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM 695001

¶8

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶9

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALPPUZHA 688001

¶10

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KUTTANADU, RAMANKARY PO, ALAPPUZHA 689595

¶11

5 THE MANAGER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶12

6 CS ADARSH, "SREELAKSHMI", NAGAROOR PO, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM 695601

¶13

7 ARCHANA DEVAKI V., VAIRASSERI MADOM, VETTUVENI, HARIPAD PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689595 BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM
BOARD

¶15

SRI. G.BIJU-SC, SRI. VENUGOPAL.V- GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.13798/2016

: 2 :

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is appointed in the School of the 5^th respondent as Full Time Menial with effect from 04.06.2009 against the promotion vacancy of one S.V. Anil who was promoted as Peon. However, his promotion was not approved initially stating the reason that the petitioner's appointment as Full Time Menial was not approved. Later, Anil's appointment was approved as per Ext.P5. However, by Ext.P7, the petitioner was ousted to accommodate the 6^th respondent who is a 51 B claimant. Being aggrieved by that the petitioner preferred WP(C) No.34364/2011. On considering the facts of the case, the petitioner was directed to prefer appeal before the competent authority as per Ext.P11 judgment. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal as per Ext.P12 before the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha.

¶21

In the meanwhile, respondents 6 and 7 preferred writ appeal against Ext.P11 judgment that was disposed of with a direction to the statutory authorities to take up appropriate steps on the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. In the light of the said

¶22

WP(C) No.13798/2016

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

direction, as per Ext.P14 order, the 3^rd respondent whereby rejected the claim of the petitioner to get approval of appointment and reinstatement in service. Ext.P14 order of rejection of appeal was challenged before the Government in revision as per Ext.P15.

¶25

On considering the revision by order dated 04.03.2016, the 1^st respondent considered the matter at length and it is clarified that it is not practical to approve the appointment of the petitioner as per the existing situation. However, on considering that the petitioner has worked between 04.06.2009 to 27.06.2011 without getting any emoluments and on humanitarian grounds, it was directed to pay the petitioner from the funds of the 5^th respondent for the period in which he served the School. A further direction was issued to the 5^th respondent to accommodate him in the existing or future vacancies in the same school or any other school under the 5^th respondent. The challenge in Ext.P16 order is to the extent, it is not specifically grant direction to appoint the petitioner, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶26

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibits P16 to the extent of disallowing the approval of Exhibit P1 appointment order and reinstatement of the petitioner to service with back wages and all other consequential benefits.

¶27

(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P5, P7 and P14.

¶28

WP(C) No.13798/2016

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

(iii) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to give approval of Exhibit P1 appointment order appointing the petitioner as full time menial in the schools under the 5^th respondent.

¶31

(iv) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner to service as full time menial in the schools under the 5^th respondent with continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits.

¶32

(v) Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue in the fact and circumstances of this case.”

¶33

In compliance of Ext.P16 order the 5^th respondent has

¶34

issued Order ROC No.10172/2015/ dated 03.05.2017 whereby the petitioner herein was accommodated against the leave vacancy. Thereafter, the 5^th respondent requested the 4^th respondent to approve the appointment as per Ext.P18. In the light of Ext.P19 circular the petitioner again approached the 5^th respondent to consider him in the certain vacancies pointed out by him. In the meanwhile, by an order dated 03.02.2018, the 4^th respondent rejected the approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy between 17.06.2016 to 31.03.2018. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached the 5^th respondent once again as per Ext.P22 representation dated 19.03.2018 which is pending consideration before the 5^th respondent.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel

¶36

WP(C) No.13798/2016

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

for the 5^th respondent.

¶39

It is contended by the learned Standing counsel for the 5^th respondent that the petitioner has appointed as Full Time Menial on the promotion vacancy of S.V. Anil. But that was not approved in the absence of approval given to the promotion to S.V. Anil as Peon. The rejection was challenged by the petitioner and ended up in Ext.P16 order. There was a direction in Ext.P16 order to pay the petitioner for the period he served the school. A further direction was issued to accommodate him in the future vacancy or existing vacancy in the same school or any other school under the 5^th respondent. However, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent that there is no vacancy is available to accommodate the petitioner at that point of time as the vacancies available has to be filled up with 51 A claimant. Therefore, the 5^th respondent was not in a position to accommodate the petitioner. His case could be considered as and when regular vacancies arise in any of the school under 5^th respondent after existing the list of 51A claimants exhausted.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader also submitted that both the appointments of the petitioner could not be approved on

¶41

WP(C) No.13798/2016

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

the specific reasons. As and when he is appointed by the 5^th respondent in a regular vacancy it could be approved in accordance with law.

¶44

Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he already approached the 5^th respondent as per Ext.P22 representation pointing out certain vacancies. He will be satisfied on the disposal of such application within a time frame.

¶45

Under such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the 5^th respondent to consider Ext.P22 representation dated 19.03.2018 preferred by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner is also directed

¶46

to produce a copy of the said representation before the 5^th respondent. The issue shall be given a logical conclusion by the 5^th respondent within the stipulated time.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

ncd

WP(C) No.13798/2016

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13798/2016

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `04.06.2009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT`
`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED` `08.06.2009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `4TH RESPONDENT`
`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2010` `OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2011` `OF DEO THIRUVALLA`
`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED` `19.01.2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`
`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2011` `OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT` `DATED 28.05.2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `IN WPC.NO.3464/2011`
`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLIATION DATED` `04.08.2008 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `5TH RESPONDENT`
`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2012` `0F THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `30.07.2014 IN WPC.NO.34364/2011 OF THE` `HIGH COURT OF KERALA`
`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED` `20.02.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`
`P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `17.06.2015 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1227/2015`
`P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2015` `OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P14(a)`	`TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P14`
`P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION`
	`FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`

¶56

WP(C) No.13798/2016

¶57

: 8 :

¶58

P16TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2016
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P16(a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P16
P17TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 07.06.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
P18TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED
20.06.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
P19TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
09.11.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P19(a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P19
EXHIBIT P20TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03.06.2017 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P20(a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P20
Exhibit P21TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B
3/5539/2017/KDIS DATED 03/02/2018 THE
DEO KATHIRAPALLY
Exhibit P21(a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P21
Exhibit P22TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
19/03/2018 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P23TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT
R5(A)

R.Rajesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajesh 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

Yeshoda C.H Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

M/S. Kerala Fertilizer Vs Union of India

M/S.Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sohil Suresh Vs Director

Kannur Dental College Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Royal Education Foundation Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences