Allowed

V.K.Shamitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024WP(C)/38014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A school assistant whose entitlement to UPSA appointment from 1.6.2011 was accepted by Government but denied service benefits until her 2016 promotion challenged the limiting order. The court quashed the limitation, granting all non-monetary benefits from 1.6.2011 while upholding a co-employee's approval.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P-12 quashed to the extent it refused service benefits from 1.6.2011; petitioner entitled to all benefits except monetary benefits from 1.6.2011 to 28.9.2016.

V.K.Shamitha Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶2

..1..

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶7

WP(C) NO. 38014 OF 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

V.K.SHAMITHA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O K.VASU, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, DEENUL ISLAM SABHA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670003 (RESIDING AT K.VASU SOUPARNIKA,CHALA EAST,P.O.KANNUR - 670621).

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD, SRI.A.RENJIT, SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR, SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD, SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR & SRI.JAYENDRAN KOCHOTH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶16

5 THE MANAGER, DEENUL ISLAM SABHA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR - 670 003.

¶17

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶18

..2..

¶19

6 THE HEADMASTER, DENNUL ISLAM SABHA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR - 670 003.

¶20

7 P.V.SINDHU, DEENUL ISLAM SABHA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR CITY, KANNUR - 670 003.

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶22

SMT. SAROJINI K G, G.P.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶25

..3..

¶26

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J. =========================

¶27

W. P. (C) No. 38014 of 2018

¶28

=========================

¶29

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2024

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner was initially appointed as Full Time Contingent Employee with effect from 19.7.2007. She had a TTC qualification and therefore, was entitled to be appointed as UPSA/LPSA. A regular vacancy of UPSA arose in the school on 1.6.2011 and though the petitioner had staked her claim, she was not appointed and another candidate from the open market was appointed against the said vacancy. However, the educational officer did not approve the appointment. Meanwhile, another regular vacancy occurred in the school on 1.8.2013 against which the 7^th respondent was appointed. Her appointment was also not approved. Finally, by Ext.P-12 order, the Government found that the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2011 is to be approved. However, the grant of benefits could be only from the date of actual promotion, namely, 28.9.2016. Ext.P-12, however, gave approval

¶32

..4..

¶33

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶34

to the appointment of the 7^th respondent from 1.8.2013. Therefore, the 7^th respondent cannot be said to be aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P-12. The petitioner challenges Ext.P-12 to the extent it limits the service benefits to the petitioner from 2016 after finding that she was entitled to be appointed from 1.6.2011.

¶35

As stated earlier, the petitioner had put forth the claim much before 1.6.2011 for being appointed as UPSA on the strength of her qualifications. Another candidate was appointed thereafter which was also not approved and when the second vacancy arose, the 7^th respondent was appointed in the year 2013. Since the petitioner was staking the claim for UPSA well before 1.6.2011 (when a vacancy arose) and the Government found that she was entitled to be appointed as UPSA from 2011 onwards, there is no reason why the consequential benefits due to the petitioner, except the monetary benefits, be granted to her.

¶36

Accordingly, Ext.P-12 is quashed to the extent it refused the service benefits to the petitioner from 1.6.2011. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all benefits except the monetary benefits from 1.6.2011 to 28.9.2016 including the notional benefits on account of

¶37

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶38

..5..

¶39

the findings made in Ext.P-12 regarding the period from 1.6.2011 and 28.9.2016. The approval of the appointment of the 7^th respondent is found to be in order in Ext.P-12 and the same is not interfered with in any manner.

¶40

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is allowed

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JUDGE

¶43

MMG

¶44

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶45

..6..

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.38014/2018

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 19/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRAINED TEACHER CERTIFICATE (ITC) AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/05/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DATED 01/10/2010, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS UPSA AND LPSA ON DIFFERENT SPELL OF LEAVE VACANCIES.

¶50

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DATED 01/06/2011, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS UPSA AND LPSA ON DIFFERENT SPELL OF LEAVE VACANCIES.

¶51

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DATED 25/11/2011, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS UPSA AND LPSA ON DIFFERENT SPELL OF LEAVE VACANCIES.

¶52

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DATED 04/06/2012, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS UPSA AND LPSA ON DIFFERENT SPELL OF LEAVE VACANCIES LPSA ON DIFFERENT SPELL OF LEAVE VACANCY.

¶53

..7..

¶54

W. P. (C) No. 38014/2018

¶55

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT DATED 30/11/2012 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS UPSA AND LPSA ON DIFFERENT SPELL OF LEAVE VACANCIES.

¶56

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/4800/2016 DATED 25/04/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.37918/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.4693/17 G.EDN. DATED 06/12/2017.

¶58

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3778/2018/G.EDN. DATED 26/09/2018.

V.K.Shamitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Shamitha 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

Rowuf @ Rauf Ali Shaik Ali, Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Ebenezer Higher Secondary School, Vs State of Kerala

Chithra.a.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sheeba T.J Vs State of Kerala

Nagesh Kumar.B.R., Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

A.Shakeela, Vs State of Kerala