IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20333 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SINI MATHEW V.M.,
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O SHAJUN THOMAS,
UPPER SCHOOL PRIMARY TEACHER,
ST. MARY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KOODATHAI, THAMARASSERY,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573
BY ADVS.
N.ANAND
VINO JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
SH29, THAMARASSERY - 673573.
4 ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL
KOODATHAI , THAMARASSERI
KOZHIKODE - 673573
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20333 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the St.Mary's High School, an aided school managed by the 4th respondent. She contends that she was appointed with effect from 1.6.2011 to 31.3.2014 in a leave vacancy. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent, the DEO approved the service of the petitioner from 1.6.2011 to 31.3.2014. As the leave availed by the teacher was extended from 1.4.2014 to 31.5.2017, the Manager extended the appointment of the petitioner to 31.5.2017 and submitted the proposal before the DEO. While so, in the retirement vacancy which arose on 31.3.2015, the petitioner was appointed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the DEO approved the appointment only from 2.6.2014 to 31.5.2015 in the LWA vacancy and from 1.6.2015 in the retirement vacancy. Being aggrieved by the order to the extent approval was not granted from 1.4.2014 to 1.6.2014, the petitioner is stated to have filed a revision petition before the Director. By Ext.P2 order, the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner is entitled to have her service from 1.4.2014 to 1.6.2014 approved. However, the DEO refused to grant approval as prayed for. Though the Manager had preferred a revision petition before the WP(C) NO. 20333 OF 2022 3 Government, the same was rejected by Ext.P8 order. Though the petitioner was the person affected, no opportunity was granted to her to substantiate her contention. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 and P8 and for issuance of directions to the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the service of the petitioner from 1.4.2014 to 1.6.2014.
2. Heard Sri.N.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who referred to Ext.P8 and it is submitted that the same is nothing but a letter issued by the Principal Secretary and cannot be considered to be an order passed in the revision petition filed before the Government. Relying on the law laid down in Sudheer T. v. M.V. Suseela and Ors. [2009 (4) KLT 29], it is submitted that the decision of the Government in statutory appeals and revisions are to be in accordance with the rules of business and should be communicated in the name of the Governor. It is also submitted that Rule 92(2)(ii) obliges the Government to supply a copy of the revision petition to the person concerned and the Government ought to have permitted the petitioner to submit a representation, which was not done.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and have considered the submissions advanced.
WP(C) NO. 20333 OF 2022 4
4. Ext.P8 is the order purported to have been passed by the Government in the revision petition filed by the Manager. Ext.P8 is in the form of a letter. None of the contentions advanced by the Manager has been considered. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to have been heard by the Government before a decision was taken in the revision petition. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has made out a case for interference.
Ext.P8 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter with due notice to the Manager and the petitioner herein and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Order, as directed above, shall be passed, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE sru WP(C) NO. 20333 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20333/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3.
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL