WP(C) NO. 17737 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 17737 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
VARGHESE A. JOSEPH,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O A.K JOSEPH, HEADMASTER, GURUKULAM HIGH SCHOOL,
EDAKKULAM, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 672,
RESIDING AT ALACKAL HOUSE, THRICKALATHOOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM - 683 541.
BY ADV S.ANEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 101.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
5 THE MANAGER,
THE MAR THOMA & E.A SCHOOLS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT,
SCS CAMPUS, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 101.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17737 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that while he was working as HST (Maths) (Higher Grade) at the St.Thomas Higher Secondary School, Keezhillam, he was promoted to the post of Headmaster at the Gurukulam H.S Edakkulam, Pathanamthitta. According to the petitioner, though he is fully qualified and competent to be appointed to the said post, the 4th respondent has denied approval and has issued Ext.P4 order. Challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent, the Manager of the School has preferred Ext.P5 appeal whereas the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal, both before the 3rd respondent. He contends that the appeal preferred by the Manager has been rejected by Ext.P7 order. However, no orders have been passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P7, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent which is pending consideration. It is contended that ignoring the pendency of the appeal, Ext.P9 order has been issued by the 5th respondent reverting the petitioner from the post of Headmaster and posting him as elsewhere with effect from 1.6.2022. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 order issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same.WP(C) NO. 17737 OF 2022 3
ii) to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P8 appeal submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
2. Sri.S.Aneesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before passing Ext.P9 order the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is also submitted that Ext.P9 order was passed during the pendency of Ext.P8 appeal preferred by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that if Ext.P8 appeal is in order and the same is pending, appropriate orders can be passed.
3. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:
a) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative and the 5th respondent.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Until orders are passed, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. WP(C) NO. 17737 OF 2022 4
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP WP(C) NO. 17737 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17737/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 01.06.2021 ISUSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER DATED 01.06.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TEACHER IN CHARGE ST.THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KEEZHILLAM.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 08.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 27.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 01.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL