Manojkumar P S vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16233 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 24796 OF 2019
PETITIONER:

              MANOJKUMAR P S, AGED 51 YEARS
              SON OF P.N.SIVANKUTTY, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
              (MALAYALAM)/TEACHER-IN-CHARGE,
              MAR PHILEXINOS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
              P.O. KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 653

              BY ADVS.
              V.A.MUHAMMED
              SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
              GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
              ANNEXE - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

     2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
              JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014

     3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
              PATHANAMTHITTA AT TIRUVALLA - 689 101

     4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
              PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 001

     5        THE MANAGER, MAR PHILEXINOS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY
              SCHOOL, P.O. KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 653

              BY ADVS SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

                      SRI. V. VENUGOPAL -GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 24796/19
                                         2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be working as

a High School Teacher in Malayalam and also the

Teacher-in-Charge in 'Mar Philexinos Vocational

Higher Secondary School', Pathanamthitta, has

approached this Court seeking a direction that the

5th respondent-Manager be directed to implement

Exts.P5 and P7 orders of the competent Educational

Authorities, whereby, he has been directed to be

promoted as the Headmaster of the said school with

effect from 05.06.2018.

2. The petitioner says that in spite of the

specific directions in Exts.P5 and P7, 5 th

respondent has refused to comply with the same and

therefore, prays that he be directed to do so

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. The learned Government Pleader -

Sri.V.Venugopal, in response, submitted that if WPC 24796/19

the Manager has not complied with the directions

in Exts.P5 and P7, then certainly he will be

exposed to act under Rule 7 Chapter III of the

Kerala Education Rules (KER for short). He prayed

that, therefore, liberty may be reserved to the

competent Educational Authorities for taking such

action.

4. Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel

appearing for the 5th respondent, in response,

submitted that his client has filed representation

against Exts.P5 and P7 and that it is, therefore,

that he has not complied with the directions

therein.

5. The afore submissions of Sri.V.Philip

Mathews is rather unconvincing because I cannot

fathom how the 5th respondent can refuse to comply

with Exts.P5 and P7 merely saying that he has

filed certain 'representation' against it.

Normally, if the 5th respondent is aggrieved by

these orders, he ought to have pursued his WPC 24796/19

statutory remedies against it, but no such

material has been placed on record. Further even

he has no case that any competent Authority has

interdicted Exts.P5 and P7 until now.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

petition and direct the 5th respondent-Manager to

promote the petitioner as the Headmaster of the

school with effect from 05.06.2018 and to forward

all necessary papers for the resultant benefits to

the competent Educational Authority within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

If the 5th respondent acts in terms of the

afore direction, the 4th respondent-DEO will

scrutinise the said papers and grant approval to

the petitioner and will also ensure that the

resultant benefits are disbursed to him without

any further delay thereafter, but within two

months from the date on which the proposal reaches

him.

WPC 24796/19

If, on the contrary, the 5th respondent

refuses to abide by the afore directions,

petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 4th

respondent-DEO, who will, thereafter, initiate

appropriate action under Rule 7 Chapter III of the

KER against the Manager appropriately, after

affording him necessary opportunity as per law.

Sd/-

RR                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                   JUDGE
 WPC 24796/19


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24796/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF'S STATEMENT AS
                  ON 19-06-2018 OF THE SCHOOL

EXHIBIT P2        TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION

SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MANAGER DATED 28- 07-2018

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.323/2018 DATED 06-08-2018 OF THE MANAGER

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 31-08-2018

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

B4/8173/2018 DATED 20-08-2018 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 34200/2018-Y DATED 21.03.2019

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET(3)/15717/19/DGE/K.DIS. DATED 29- 06-2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (GENERAL)

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21-08-2019