Kerala High Court
Renu Sebastian vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 RENU SEBASTIAN
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. SEBASTIAN VARGHESE,
NOW WORKING AS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
L.F.HIGH SCHOOL, OONNUKAL, KOTHAMANGALAM.
2 MINI MOLE SEBASTIAN
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. SEBASTIAN MATHEW, NOW WORKING AS UPPER PRIMARY
SCHOOL TEACHER, L.F.HIGH SCHOOL,
OONNUKAL, KOTHAMANGALAM.
3 BINCY P. JACOB
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. SANTHOSH, NOW WORKING AS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
TEACHER, L.F.HIGH SCHOOL, OONNUKAL,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
4 RIGIL JOY
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. V.P. JOY, NOW WORKING AS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
TEACHER, ST. GEORGE H.S.S.,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV PAULSON THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 005
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
2
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691.
4 CORPORATE MANAGER
CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691.
BY ADV
SRI.K.T.THOMAS, SC
SRI. V.VENUGOPAL - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be working as Upper Primary School
Teachers in various schools managed by the 4 th respondent Manager of
the Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Kothamangalam. They
allege that, even though they were approved to substantive vacancies in
full compliance of all applicable Rules and Regulations, their approval
has been denied solely saying that certain teachers earlier appointed -
who are thus seniors to them in service - have been denied approval to
their appointments.
2. The petitioners say that the orders impugned in this writ
petition are wholly untenable for the reason that the teachers who are
senior to them and whose names are referred in the said orders, had
issued Ext.P11 series letters stating that they have no objection to the
approval of appointments of the petitioners. The petitioners say that this
was done by their seniors because they are not staking claim to any of
the vacancies occupied by them since their posts are completely
different.
3. The petitioners thus pray that Exts.P7 to P10 be set aside and
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
that the 3rd respondent - District Educational Officer, Kothamanglam, be
directed to re-consider their claim on the strength of Ext.P11 series and
adverting to Exts.P12 and P16 government orders, wherein, the
aforementioned senior teachers have been directed to be granted
approval provisionally, subject to the decision in W.P.(C) No.26857 of
2019 and connected matters.
4. I have heard Sri. Paulson Thomas, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Sri. K.T Thomas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
4th respondent and Sri. V. Venugopal, learned Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents.
5. The learned Government Pleader Sri. V. Venugopal
contested the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, by
pointing out that, in Exts.P7 to P10, it is also recorded that there was no
confirmed vacancy to accommodate the petitioners. He submitted that,
therefore, they cannot insist that approval to their appointments be
granted by the DEO and thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
6. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader as afore, it
is obvious from Exts.P7 to P10 that the real reason which lead to
rejection of the approval of the petitioners is because the appointments of
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
certain senior teachers were awaiting approval. However, those teachers
have now issued Ext.P11 series undertakings to the effect that they have
no objection in the petitioners' approvals being granted, subject to law.
Moreover, when one goes to Exts.P12 and P16 orders, it is limpid that
approval of the senior teachers are pending before this Court and that an
interim order has been issued in their favour directing the grant of
provisional approval to them, subject to the final judgment in the said
writ petition.
7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that it will not be justified
for the competent educational Authorities to have rejected the approval
of appointments of the petitioners, solely for the reason that their seniors
are awaiting such approval.
In the above circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside
Exts.P7 and P10, with a consequential direction to the 3 rd respondent -
DEO to reconsider the claims of the petitioners for approval of their
appointments, adverting to Ext.P11 series, as also Exts.P12 and P16
Government Orders and after affording an opportunity of being heard to
them, as well as their senior teachers, along with the Manager of the
School - either physically or through video conferencing - thus
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
culminating in appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,
but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
Needless to say, depending upon the decision to be taken by the
DEO as afore, all eligible benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioners
without any avoidable delay thereafter, but not later than one month
subsequently.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SCS
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3873/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
13.10.2020 IN WPC NO.4694/2020 AND WPC
NO.12293/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
IST PETITIONER DATED 6.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 6.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
3RD PETITIONER DATED 6.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
4TH PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER
NO.N.H.3/172/2018/G.EDN. DATED 11.9.2018
RESTRICTING APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS,
MENTIONED AS EXT-P7 IN EXT-P1.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING APPROVAL
OF THE IST PETITIONER NO.B4/19612/2020
DATED 8.1.2021.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING APPROVAL
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER NO.B4/19620/2020
DATED 8.1.2021.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING APPROVAL
OF THE 3RD PETITIONER NO.B4/19613/2020
DATED 8.1.2021.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING APPROVAL
OF THE 4TH PETITIONER NO.B4/19416/2020
DATED 6.1.2021.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER
ISSUED BY BEENA MATHEW UPST DATED
2.2.2021.
WP(C) NO. 3873 OF 2021
EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER
ISSUED BY ABITHA JACOB DATED 2.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P11(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER
ISSUED BY AJIMOL GEORGE UPST DATED
2.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P11(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER
ISSUED BY ELSA P. GEORGE UPST DATED
2.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P11(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION LETTER
ISSUED BY RIGIL JOY UPST DATED 2.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.258/1990/G.EDN.
DATED 15.12.1999.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
NO.B4/3579/18/K.DIS. DATED 29.3.2019.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DGE/12279/2019-
EC3 DATED 07.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE DPI
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DGE/12584/2019-
EC3 DATED 07.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE DPI
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER
NO.L1/241/2020/G.EDN.DATED 11.12.2020
