Disposed

V.S.Sobha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2024WP(C)/7973/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging government approval of the 7th respondent's appointment as Headmaster in a leave vacancy. The court declined to decide the issue as academic since the 7th respondent had retired with benefits settled, but directed approval of the petitioner's Headmistress appointment for 2013-14 and reworking of her retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1-5 to approve petitioner's appointment as Headmistress (1.6.2013-31.3.2014) within one month and release consequential benefits within two months thereafter.

V.S.Sobha Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7973 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

V.S.SOBHA
AGED 60 YEARS

¶8

W/O.CHITHARENJAN, AGED 60,RESIDING AT RESMI,
OONNINMOODU, BHOOTHAKULAM PO, KOLLAM 691302

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SRI.M.ASHOK KINI
SMT.R.RANJANIE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001

¶13

2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014

¶14

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THE DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695014

¶15

4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM 691001

¶16

5 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM 691001

¶17

6 JOINT MANAGER

¶18

CHEMPAKASSERY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND

¶19

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶20

¶21

CHEMPAKASSERY TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE,
BHOOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM 691302

¶22

7SHRI. V.J. CHANDRACHOODAN NAIR
KAVERI, EDAYADI, NELLATHILL PO,
PIN 691302

¶23

BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶24

SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR CHERTHALA

¶25

SMT. PREETHA. K. K., SR. G. P.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶28

¶29

EASWARAN S. , J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of June 2024

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The dispute raised in the writ petition falls in a narrow compass.

¶34

The petitioner challenges Ext.P17 order, by which, the 7^th respondent’s appointment as Headmaster of the Chembakassery Teachers Training Institute, in a leave vacancy from 21.10.2009 to 31.3.2010 was approved. The issue to be decided in the present writ petition would be bare academic.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings taken by the respondents 1 to 6 are contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.

¶36

In the said premises this Court proceeds to consider the rival submissions of the parties.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018 4

¶38

The Chemapakassery Higher Secondary School and Chempakassery Teachers Training Institute comes under the management of the 6^th respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the Chemapakassery Higher Secondary School on 1.6.1987 and later promoted and appointed to the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) with effect from 23.9.1993. Later, from 1.6.2013 to 31.3.2014, the petitioner held the post of Headmistress in the Chempakassery High School, Bhoothakulam, on retirement of Smt. B. S Beena, who was the Headmistress with effect from 1.4.2009 to 31.5.2013.

¶39

The 7^th respondent was promoted to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) in the Chempakassery Higher Secondary School, Boothakulam in 2005 and he was holding the post on a regular basis. Later, the vacancy that arose on account of the leave taken by One Smt. Leelamma, who was the Headmistress of the Teachers Training Institute, from 21.10.2009 to 31.3.2010, was filled by appointing the 7^th respondent. After a series of litigation, by the order impugned in the writ petition, i.e, Ext.P17, the Government had approved the appointment of the 7^th

¶40

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶41

¶42

respondent on the ground that the 7^th respondent never lost the lien in the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior).

¶43

When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, a specific query was raised by this Court to the petitioner as well as the 7^th respondent as to whether they are still in the service. The answer from the respective counsel was that both the petitioner as well as the 7^th respondent has retired. Still further, it was brought to the notice of this Court that after the leave vacancy expired on

¶44

31.3.2010, the 7^th respondent was later posted as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) and then came back again to the Chempakassery Teachers Training Institute as Headmaster with effect from 1.4.2011 to 31.5.2015, and that appointment was also

¶45

approved, and consequently the 7^th respondent retired as Headmaster, and the consequential benefits have also been settled

¶46

in favor of the 7^th respondent. In the light of the peculiar facts, the issue as to whether the 7^th respondent could have been brought back to the Chempakassery Teachers Training Institute and later appointed as Headmaster in the leave vacancy becomes mere academic. The petitioner may be justified in contenting that once

¶47

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018 6

¶48

the person is appointed as H.S.S.T (Junior) and his appointment having been approved, could not have been brought back to the post of Headmaster in the Chempakassery Teachers Training Institute. The petitioner take support from the information obtained under the Right to Information Act which has been produced as Ext.P11 in the writ petition.

¶49

Be that as it may, the question as to whether this Court should judicially review the action of the 1^st respondent granting approval to the 7^th respondent remains to be seen, especially on a consideration of the facts, especially when the 7^th respondent has retired from service and that he has been settled with all retirement benefits. It is to be noted that the 7^th respondent had worked in the post during the disputed period 21.10.2009 to 31.3.2010 and granted all the consequential benefits, this Court does not deem it appropriate to proceed further and decide the case on its merit.

¶50

Smt.R. Ranjini, the learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner from 1.6.2013 to 31.3.2014 as Headmistress in the Chempakassery High

¶51

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶52

¶53

School has yet to be approved because of the pendency of the writ petition.

¶54

In the considered view of this Court, the action of the department in not approving the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress in the Chemapakassery High School from 1.6.2013 to 31.3.2014 is not correct and therefore appropriate action for approval of the said appointment and also reworking of the retirement benefits shall be taken by the competent among the respondents 1 to 5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequential benefits flowing out of such approval was also be released to the petitioner within a further period of two months from the date of passing of the said order.

¶55

This writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶60

¶61

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7973/2018

¶62

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶63

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `RESPO`	`PHOTO` `TTED` `NDENT`	`COPY` `BY`	`OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.10.2009` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `RESPO`	`PHOTO` `TTED` `NDENT`	`COPY` `BY`	`OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.10.2009` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `RESPO`	`PHOTO` `TTED` `NDENT`	`COPY` `BY`	`OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.10.2009` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE` `SUBMI` `RESPO`	`PHOTO` `TTED` `NDENT`	`COPY` `BY`	`OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.11.2009` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE` `18.01`	`PHO` `.2010`	`TOCOP` `OF T`	`Y OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `HE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE` `25.03`	`PHOT` `.2011`	`OCOPY`	`OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`PHOTO`	`COPY`	`OF TH`	`E --- DATED 4.4.2011`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE` `05.04`	`PHOT` `.2011`	`OCOP` `SUBM`	`Y OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `ITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE` `COMBI`	`PHOTO` `NED S`	`COPY` `ENIOR`	`OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE` `ITY LIST`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE` `TO IN`	`PHOTO` `FORMA`	`COPY` `TION`	`OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT` `ACT`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE` `DATED`	`PHOTO` `23.0`	`COPY` `4.201`	`OF ANSWERS RECEIVED FOR EXT P10` `1`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE` `SUBMI`	`PHOTO` `TTED`	`COPY` `UNDER`	`OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.05.2011` `THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE`	`PHOTO`	`COPY`	`OF THE ANSWERS RECEIVED FOR EXT P12`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`TRUE` `WRIT`	`PHOTO` `PETIT`	`COPY` `ION 2`	`OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2006 IN` `3383/2006`

¶64

W.P.(C) No.7973 of 2018

¶65

¶66

`EXHIBIT P15`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF`	`THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2017`
`EXHIBIT P16`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `25.01.2018`	`OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES DATED`
`EXHIBIT P17`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF` `ON THE PETITIONER`	`THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2018 SERVED` `ON 28.02.2018`
`EXHIBIT P18`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF` `TO THE PETITIONER`	`THE MEMO DATED 08.12.2009 ISSUED`
`EXHIBIT P19`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF` `PETITIONER TO EXT`	`THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE` `P18`
`EXHIBIT P20`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF` `BY THE 1ST RESPOND`	`THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2007 ISSUED` `ENT`

V.S.Sobha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Sobha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajana v.T., Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Surendran Nair.P.v Vs the Assistant General Manager Syndicate Bank Amended as Canara Bank

Rajan. G. Pinayuvila Vs the Deputy Accountant General (a&Rs)

M.I.Mathew @ Mathu Vs Geologist

A.K.Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala

Arafath Vattaparambath Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee