IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.26929 OF 2011(M)
PETITIONER:
MOLLEYKUTTY K.V., H.S.A.(NATURAL SCIENCE),
ST.JOSEPH'S H.S.S., VAYATTUPARAMBA,
P.O.VAYATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 582.
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR-670 001.
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KASARGOD-671 001.
5 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANHANGAD-671 315, KASARGOD.
6 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE
EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCH DIOCESE OF
THALASSERRY, KANNUR-670 101.
R1-R6 BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 26929/11 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February 2021 The petitioner says that she had worked as a High School Assistant in Natural Science in the Schools managed by the fourth respondent Corporate Manager for various spells and that they were validly approved. She says that, thereafter, she was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in St.John's High School, Palavayal with effect from 17.09.1998. She alleges that despite the fact that she had several broken spells of service before the said date and though she had been discharging continuous service, the approval was illegallylimited to 31.03.1999.
2. The petitioner submits that she should have been granted approval for the vacation period, going by Rule 49 Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and that she was under the bonafide impression that the Manager was agitating her cause before various Educational Authorities, but that she came to be aware that all applications had been dismissed by them for the reason that they were filed belatedly, finally culminating in Exhibit P14 order of the Government dated 25.04.2009, which rejected the statutory Revision filed by the Manager for the same reason.
WPC 26929/11 3
3. The petitioner alleges that it is clear from Exhibits P10, P12 and P14 orders that the delay occurred on account of the negligence of the Manager and that since all of them have been issued without giving her an opportunity of being heard, they cannot be held against her. She, therefore, prays that Exhibits P10, P12 and P14 orders be set aside and the competent Educational Authorities be directed to grant her approval with effect from 17.09.1998, without limiting it only to 31.03.1999.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner added to the afore submissions by saying that pending this lis, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment in State of Kerala and Others v. Sneha Cheriyan and Another ((2013) 5 SCC 160), making it clear that approval of a teacher appointed for a duration of less than eight months cannot be declined and therefore, that, as matters now stand, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits sought for in this writ petition. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the competent Educational Authorities be directed to issue orders in favour of the petitioner, adverting to Sneha Cheriyan (supra).
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Manager had not agitated the petitioner's claim for several years WPC 26929/11 4 after her approval had been rejected by the District Educational Officer (DEO) and that same is not liable to be considered. He added that the petitioner had also not challenged her rejection of approval by the DEO at any time until now and therefore, prayed that she may not be allowed any further latitude by this Court.
6. When I analyse the submissions as afore, Exhibits P10, P12 and P14 orders have been issued by various authorities, including the Government, on the applications of the Manager. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had not approached any of the said authorities, but I find justification in her explanation that she was under the impression that the Manager had been agitating her cause before the competent authorities. In fact, it is clear from the impugned orders that he did so, albeit with considerable amount of delay. It is, therefore, that the authorities have rejected such applications, recording in the impugned orders that one of the reasons for doing so is the delay caused by the Manager.
7. That said, it is also indubitable that the petitioner had never been heard by any of the authorities and this is relevant because the ultimate result is that the petitioner's approval has been rejected.
WPC 26929/11 5
8. That said, as matters now stand, the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneha Cheriyan (supra) would have substantial bearing on the facts of this case and, therefore, the petitioner must certainly be given liberty to have her version heard by the competent authorities before she can be found not entitled to the benefit of approval.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Exhibit P14 order; with a consequential direction to the competent Secretary of the Government to re-consider the Revision filed by the Manager, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also the Manager of the School - either physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, Government will advert to the ratio in Sneha Cheriyan (supra) and also the contention of the petitioner that she be granted approval with effect from 17.09.1998, without limiting it to 31.03.1999.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv WPC 26929/11 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHHIBITS:
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.1.1993 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.8.1994 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.9.1996 EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 17.9.1998 EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF ORDER EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.1999 EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.6.2006 EXT. P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.1.2007 EXT. P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.2.2007 EXT. P11 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 7.4.2007 EXT. P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.1.2008 EXT. P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 29.2.2008 EXT. P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.4.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE