Kerala High Court
Elizabeth Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.8415 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER/S:
ELIZABETH CHACKO
AGED 46 YEARS
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (NATURAL SCIENCE), ST. THOMAS HSS
KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPUZHA-690516.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA
SMT.C.B.ABHINAVA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPUZHA,
WEST AMBALAPUZHA, PIN-688001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALAPUZHA,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPUZHA-
689595.
5 CORPORATE MANAGER,
CATHOLICATE AND MD SCHOOLS CORPORATE MANAGEMENT,
DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686038.
6 AMEL BABU,
HST (NS), JMHS KODUKULANJI, ALAPUZHA, PIN-689508.
R5 BY ADV. SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
R5 BY SRI.ROSHEN D.ALEXANDER,SC,INSTIT.OF LAN
R5 BY ADV. SHRI.HARIMOHAN
NISHA BOSE GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8415 OF 2021(B) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April 2021
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of
Exhibit P14 order of the 2nd respondent, to the extend it directs
the reversion of the junior most HST (NS) with or without
approval by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii) To declare that the Exhibit P14 is issued in violation of
the principles of the natural justice as it was passed without
giving an opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner who is
the affected party.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4 th
respondent to approve the promotion of the petitioner as HST
(NS) w.e.f. 06.06.2019 at St.Thomas HSS Karthikapally in the
light of Exhibit P15 by taking note Exhibit P9, and P9(a)
certificates.
iv) To declare that to implement Exhibit P14 order, there
is no requirement or necessary to revert the petitioner or other
junior HST (NS) as UPST, as there exists sufficient posts of
HST(NS) under the management.
v) To restrain the 5th respondent Manager from reverting
the petitioner as UPST, to comply with the directions contained
in Exhibit P14 order of the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
5th respondent Corporate Manager.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is presently working as HST (Natural Science) in the
St.Thomas HSS Karthikapally managed by the 5 th respondent. She was
initially appointed as UPST in a promotion vacancy but the said
appointment was rejected. Later she was appointed in a leave vacancy
and thereafter shifted to a regular vacancy of UPST and both the said
appointments were approved. It is submitted that when a vacancy of
HST arose, the petitioner was promoted to the said post but the
approval was rejected on the ground that she had not passed the K
TET Examination. It is submitted that the petitioner has cleared the K
TET Examination and Exts.P9 and P9(a) certificates are evidence of
the same. It is submitted that the 6th respondent had approached the
2nd respondent against the promotion of her Juniors as HST,
overlooking her seniority. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent had
issued Ext.P14 order directing the grant of notional promotion to the
6th respondent from 01.06.2016 and a regular promotion from
01.06.2017, if necessary, by reverting Junior hands. It is submitted
that as per Ext.P11, the 6th respondent had thereafter relinquished
her right for promotion for the year 2016-17 and was granted
promotion with effect from 01.08.2017 and the same is approved. It is
submitted that there was a further issue with regard to non approval
of appointment by transfer of an HSST Junior under the Corporate
Management and it is stated that it is on the said basis that the
petitioner's appointment has not been approved. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the issue is liable to be considered in
accordance with law and the petitioner is to be permitted to continue
as HST (Natural Science) in the St.Thomas HSS Karthikapally, till the
issue is considered by the Government. It is submitted that since the
petitioner is an approved UPSA, the pay in the lower post is also liable
to be released to the petitioner.
4. A memo has been preferred by the learned counsel appearing
for the 5th respondent producing a revision petition submitted by the
5th respondent before the Government against Ext.P14 order of the
DGE. It is submitted that the said revision petition is liable to be
considered in accordance with law and till such time, the petitioner
may be permitted to continue as HST (Natural Science) drawing the
salary of UPSA subject to the orders to be passed by the Government.
Having heard the learned Government Pleader also and in view
of Exts.P9 and P11 produced by the petitioner, I am of the opinion
that the revision petition preferred by the Manager as against Ext.P14
order of the DGE is liable to be considered in accordance with law.
There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1 st respondent to take
up, consider and pass orders on the revision petition submitted by the
Manager as against Ext.P14, with notice to the Manager, the
petitioner as well as the 6th respondent. Orders shall be passed by the
Government after hearing the parties through any appropriate means
including video conferencing within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the
petitioner may be permitted to continue as HST (Natural Science) and
will also be paid the salary of UPST subject to the orders to be passed
by the Government. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ
petition as well as the memo submitted by the learned counsel for the
5th respondent with the copy of the revision petition along with a
copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
SVP
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.CMD/TR/675/19
DATED 27.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS
HST (NS) W.E.F. 6.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED
26.3.2014.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.3442/2017/G.EDN.
DATED 28.9.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.B6/9181/2017 DATED
7.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEO KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED
18.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P5(A) PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER
NO.B6/4134/2018/D.DIS. DATED 5.4.2019
ISSUED BY THE DEO, MAVELIKKARA.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER
NO.B4/5394/2019/K.DIS. DATED 25.10.2019
ISSUED BY THE DEO, ALAPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.B4/10773/2019
DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.B2/210466/2020
DATED 4.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF K TET ELIGIBILITY
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 25.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P9(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE K TET ELIGIBILITY
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 17.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
1.6.2016.
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED TO SMT. SHEENU V.THOMAS AS HSST
(JR), BOTANI DATED 26.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P12(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
(MS)TR/1076/19 DATED 15.7.2019 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.22642/2020 DATED 22.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER
NO.EC1/7864/2020/DGE/K.DIS DATED
5.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.194/2019/G.EDN.
DATED 15.11.2019.
