Partly allowed

A.Shakeela, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024WP(C)/40241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging orders regarding the regularization of the petitioner's appointment as UPST. The Court quashed impugned orders and directed the Director of General Education to decide the pending review petition filed by the Manager at the earliest, within six weeks. The disposal must consider the first appointment order of June 2, 2014, for both th

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Director directed to decide review petition within six weeks; monetary benefits to be paid within three months of approval.

A.Shakeela, 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 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C) NO. 40241 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.SHAKEELA, AGED 39 YEARS D/O ALIYAR KUNJU, THAIKKADU HOUSE, KUNDUMAN VELICHIKALA P.O, KOLLAM. 691573.

¶8

BY ADVS. R.KRISHNA RAJ E.S.SONI KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR RESMI A.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691501.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 691501.

¶12

3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION ROAD, T.D.NAGAR, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 514.

¶13

4 MANAGER, BET UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KUNDUMON, VELICHIKKAA P.O., NEDUMPANA, KOLLAM-691 573.

¶14

5 REJEENA.S.,

¶15

-2-

¶16

WP(C)No.40241 of 2022

¶17

UPST, BET UPS, KUNDUMON, VELICHIKKALA P.O., KOLLAM-691 573.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SR GP RAJEESH V.R. R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA)(RAMAMOORTHY)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

-3-

¶21

WP(C)No.40241 of 2022

¶22

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶24

WP(C)No.40241 of 2022

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2024

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner was appointed as UPST on 2.6.2014 by Ext.P4 order dated 2.6.2014 as against the promotion vacancy of one Smt.C.S.Suja. The fifth respondent herein was also appointed on 2.6.2014 as UPST in the vacancy of one Sri. Pookunju who availed a long leave. One A.S.Khayis was appointed as UPSA on 28.07.2011 and his appointment was also approved on 31.03.2012 when a regular vacancy of UPSA arose from 2.6.2014 and another vacancy that arose due to the promotion of a senior most teacher, the petitioner and the fifth respondent was appointed as stated above. Sri. Khayis complained that he was sent out when the petitioner and the fifth respondent were appointed as the teacher who availed leave rejoined duty. This led to WP(C)No. 1765/2019 being filed by Sri.A.S.Khayis, WP(C)No.42495/2018 filed by the manager and WP(C)No.21016/2020 filed by the petitioner and the fifth respondent as petitioners. The writ petitions were considered together and by a common judgment dated 12.1.2021, directed the fourth respondent, the manager to adjust the appointments made in accordance with the directions contained in the Government Order dated 9.11.1999. It was also stated that the appointments of the

¶29

-4-

¶30

WP(C)No.40241 of 2022

¶31

petitioner herein and the fourth respondent shall also appropriately regulated against the leave vacancies and regular vacancies which arose in 2014 and 2019 respectively. The educational authorities were directed to approve the appointments within one month and also to disburse the monetary benefits. Thereafter, the manager again approached this Court in WP(C)No.9907/2021 and by Ext.P5 judgment this Court took note of the contention of the learned Government Pleader that if the manager submits the proposal through ‘SAMANWAYA’ portal the request for approval can be considered. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as follows:-

¶32

“1. The petitioner shall submit the proposal of approval of respondents 5 and 6 through SAMANWAYA, and if the same is done, appropriate action shall be taken, and orders shall be passed by the AEO as expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months.

¶33

The issue of seniority between respondents 5 and 6 will not be a reason for the AEO to refuse to consider the request for approval as ordered above.

¶34

The issue of seniority between respondents 5 and 6 is left open. The AEO shall complete the exercise as ordered above within a period of two months with prior notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while submitting the proposal through SAMANWAYA, Ext.P7, the appointment of the petitioner was shown was as against the vacancy of Pookunju varying the appointment order made as per Ext.P4, wherein it was shown against the

¶36

-5-

¶37

WP(C)No.40241 of 2022

¶38

vacancy of C.S.Suja. Though this Court specifically directed the issue of seniority between the petitioner and the fifth respondent to be decided later, by Ext.P8 order dated 3.10.2022, the DEO found that the appointment of Regeena from 2.6.2014 to 14.7.2015 can be approved against the vacancy of C.S.Suja and that the appointment of the petitioner herein can be approved against the vacancy of Sri.Pookunju. It was also stated that Rajeena could be appointed invoking the claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A KER. Ext.P8 also noted that the manager had made the appointment to fill the vacancy with effect from 3.6.2019 against the vacancy of Pookunju, but the claim of the Rajeena who was stated to be senior was not approved. A consequential order, Ext.P9, was also passed.

¶39

The petitioner challenges Exts.P7, P8 and P9 and prays for a direction to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as UPST with effect from 2.6.2014 to 14.7.2015 and also to release the salary for the period. It is seen that the manager had filed Ext.10 review petition, probably realising the mistake and the same was filed before the AEO, who found by Ext.P11 that he does not have the power to review and, therefore, the same has to be moved before the Director.

¶40

After hearing all counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that the original appointments made of the petitioner, as seen from Exts.P4 and P5, have to be reckoned for considering their approval. Though the manager requested the same in the review petition, it was rejected as per

¶41

-6-

¶42

¶43

Ext.P11, by Ext.R3(b) dated 9.11.2022, stating that he does not have the power to consider the review.

¶44

In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed, and there will be a direction to the Director to take a decision in the review petition filed by the manager Ext.P10 and pass orders after hearing the petitioner, fifth respondent as well as the manager, at the earliest, and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On orders of approval being passed by the petitioner, the attendant benefits will be paid to the petitioner and the fifth respondent within three months of the date of granting approval. The parties will be free to produce such documents to substantiate their contentions, which will be adverted to by the Director while taking a decision. It is clarified that the Director, while considering the approval of the appointment of the petitioner and the fifth respondent, will take into account the first appointment order of the manager dated 2.6.2014 with respect to both the petitioner and the fifth respondent.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk/14.3.2024

-7-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40241/2022

¶53

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY COURT IN W	OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE P(C) 21016/2020 DATED 12.01.2021.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY BY THE 4T RESPONDENT	OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 5TH DATED 02.06.2014.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY BY THE 4T RESPONDENT	OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 5TH DATED 03.06.2019.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY BY THE 4T PETITIONER	OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE DATED 02.06.2014.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY COURT IN W	OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE P(C)9907/2021DATED 13.07.2022.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY 10.12.2021	OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED .
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY DATED NIL	OF THE APPLICATION IN SAMUNNAYA
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD DATED 03.10.2022 .
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 3RD DATED 07.10.2022 .
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY THE 4TH RE	OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY SPONDENT DATED 17.10.2022.
RESPOND	ENTS	EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	R2(B	) TRUE COPY	OF THE LETTER NO. C/579/2021

¶55

-8-

¶56

¶57

DATED. 9.11.22 OF THE AEO, KUNDARA.

¶58

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/35718/2022 DATED. 7.10.22 OF THE AEO, KUNDARA

A.Shakeela, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Shakeela, 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

V.K.Shamitha Vs State of Kerala