Disposed¶42

Vincy M v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2025WP(C)/11274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Approval of appointment; HSST (Junior) Economics; aided higher secondary school; KKMHSS Vandithavalam, Palakkad; Manager; Regional Deputy Director HSE; refusal of approval; Ext.P7; revision petition to Government; KER Chapter XXXII; Differently Abled roster and requisition; direction to Government; four months timeline; opportunity of hearing; SLP(C) No.11373/2024 dated 04.03.2025; Kerala High Court Ernakulam; W.P.(C) 11274 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent (Government) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 revision petition in the light of the Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, within four months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. ¶42

Vincy M Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent (Government) should be directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's Ext.P11 revision petition seeking approval of her appointment as HSST (Junior) Economics, in the light of the Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶41

Court's answer

In view of the Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the 1st respondent (Government) can very well consider the Ext.P11 revision petition and take a decision expeditiously.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 in the light of the Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, within a period of four months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (civil) before the High Court of Kerala (single Judge, N. Nagaresh, J.) disposed of on 24.03.2025. The petitioner, selected by a Selection Committee (including Government nominee) to a direct-recruitment vacancy of HSST (Junior) Economics at KKMHSS, Vandithavalam, Palakkad, was appointed by order dated 16.12.2024 under Chapter XXXII, Kerala Education Rules. The 3rd respondent (Regional Deputy Director, HSE) declined approval of the appointment (Ext.P7), despite available roster particulars and a requisition concerning Differently Abled candidates. A revision petition dated 27.02.2025 (Ext.P11) filed before the Government remained pending. The Court held that, in view of the Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (SLP(C) No.11373/2024 dated 04.03.2025), the Government could consider Ext.P11 and dispose of it, and directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 in the light of that Apex Court judgment within four months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶1

2025:KER:24999

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶5

MONDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 11274 OF 2025

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VINCY M AGED 39 YEARS, W/O HIJESH K S HSST JR. ECONOMICS, KKMHSS, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD (RESIDING AT KALATHIL HOUSE , KAITHARAVU, VANDITHAVALAM P.O, PALAKKAD), PIN – 678534.

¶9

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶12

W.P.(C)No.11274 of 2025

¶13

:2:

¶14

2025:KER:24999

¶15

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW BUILDING, ULOOR LANE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.

¶16

3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION RD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505.

¶17

4 THE MANAGER, KKMHSS, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678534.

¶18

5 THE HEADMASTER, KKMHSS, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678534.

¶19

BY ADV.SRI. V. VENUGOPAL, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C)No.11274 of 2025

:3:

2025:KER:24999

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2025

¶26

The petitioner states that as against the vacancy of HSST (Junior) Economics which could be filled up by direct recruitment as per the Rules, Selection Committee was convened, including Government nominee. Among the candidates appeared, the petitioner fared well and she was selected.

¶27

The petitioner was served with appointment order dated 16.12.2024 as HSST (Junior) Economics. Pursuant to the appointment of the petitioner, proposals along with the required documents were made over to the 3^rd respondent by the Manager for approval to the appointment of the petitioner covered by Ext.P4. But, it is declined on trivial reason. The 3^rd

¶28

W.P.(C)No.11274 of 2025

¶29

:4:

¶30

2025:KER:24999

¶31

respondent could have kept the proposal in the office and called for remarks in fairness.

¶32

The petitioner states that necessary roster

¶33

details regarding the appointments of Differently Abled hands were available and requisition was made by the Manager to the officers concerned. In view of these, approval to the appointment of the petitioner could be granted in line with Ext.P10 judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶34

In the circumstances, assailing Ext.P7 and seeking approval to Ext.P4 appointment which was made in compliance with statutory provision, revision petition dated 27.02.2025 is moved before the Government. It is pending. The petitioner was appointed in compliance with the statutory provisions contained in Chapter XXXII, KER. Hence, in any view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioner is liable to be approved, contends the petitioner.

¶35

W.P.(C)No.11274 of 2025

¶36

:5:

¶37

2025:KER:24999

¶38

I have heard the learned Counsel for the

¶39

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

¶40

From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner

¶41

has moved Ext.P11 revision petition before the Government invoking the provisions of the KER. In view of Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the 1^st respondent can very well consider Ext.P11 and take a decision expeditiously.

¶42

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 in the light of Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, within a period of four months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶43

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶44

ams

¶45

W.P.(C)No.11274 of 2025

¶46

:6:

¶47

2025:KER:24999

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11274/2025

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P-1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP 18461/2024 DATED 23.05.2024	C NO.
Exhibit P-2	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) 8137/2024/G.EDN DATED 18.11.2024	NO.
Exhibit P-3	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELE COMMITTEE DATED 13.12.2024	CTION
Exhibit P-4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER 16.12.2024	DATED
Exhibit P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT 16.12.2024	DATED
Exhibit P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE TIME TABLE (WORKLOA RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.12	D) IN .2024
Exhibit P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RDDHSE/MLPM/6813/2024-F DATED 25.02.2	NO. 025
Exhibit P-8	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION 05.03.20	25
Exhibit P-9	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLED 11.03.2025	GEMENT
Exhibit P-10	TRUE COPY OF THE APEX COURT JUDGME SLP(C) NO.11373/2024 DATED 04.03.2025	NT IN
Exhibit P-11	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SO SUBMITT THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT 27.02.2025	ED BY DATED

Vincy M v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincy M v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.V. Malathy Vs State of Kerala

V. v Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Amritha T. Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Cheruvalath, Vs State of Kerala

Marwa Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Deepa Karathambalath Vs the State of Kerala