Kerala High Court
Raju K.Jacob vs The State Of Kerala And Others on 4 August, 2021
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. 31420 OF 2011
PETITIONER:
RAJU K.JACOB
FULL-TIME MENIAL, ST.JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL, VATAKARA,,
KOOTHATTUKULAM, (RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE KOCHUKUNNEL, HOUSE,
P.O.KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.E.HAMZA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682 030.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.
5 THE MANAGER
ST.JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL, VATAKARA,, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-686 662.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU
SRI.T.R.SADEESAN
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
OTHER PRESENT:
G.P -SRI.V. VENUGOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31420 OF 2011
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as a Full Time Menial in
"St.John's High School", Vatakara, has approached this Court
impugning Ext.P1(a) proceedings of the 4th respondent - District
Educational Officer, Muvattupuzha, dated 28.04.2007, rejecting
approval to his appointment which was made with effect from
11.08.2006, on various grounds including that the Manager who
appointed him was not competent to act in such capacity on the
said date.
2. The petitioner says that it is also stated in Ext.P1(a) that
promotion of Sri.Shine Skaria, in whose place he was appointed
consequent to the former being promoted as Lab Assistant, was still
pending and that he had not produced the Joining Duty Report as
on the date of his appointment. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P1(a)
is untenable because the appointments made by the then Manager -
Sri.P.J.Joseph, had been directed to be approved by this Court in
the judgment dated 26.10.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2877/2009 and
connected matters, as also the approval of aforementioned
Sri.Shine Skaria.
WP(C) NO. 31420 OF 2011
3. The petitioner contends that, therefore, both the
substantive objections in Ext.P1(a) are no longer relevant and thus
prays that same be set aside and the 4 th respondent - District
Educational Officer (DEO), be directed to grant approval to his
appointment with effect from 11.08.2006.
4. I have heard Sri.M.Sajjad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader - Sri.V.Venugopal,
appearing for the official respondents.
5. The learned Government Pleader, in response to the
submissions of the petitioner, submitted that apart from the reasons
stated in Ext.P1(a), there is also one hurdle in front of the
petitioner, namely, that there was another person by name Smt.Sali
T. John, who had a preferential claim under Rule 43, since she was
working as a Part Time Menial at the relevant time. The learned
Government Pleader, however, conceded that no contradictory
claim has been raised by the said Smt.Sali T. John as of now and he,
therefore, prayed that if this Court is so inclined, then the DEO be
directed to reconsider the request for approval of the appointment
of the petitioner in terms of law.
6. I have examined Ext.P1(a), which is the order impugned
WP(C) NO. 31420 OF 2011
in this writ petition.
7. As rightly stated by Sri.M.Sajjad, petitioner's
appointment as a Full Time Menial with effect from 11.08.2006 has
been rejected for the reason that then Manager was not competent
to make the appointment and because promotion of the earlier
incumbent in the post, Sri.Shine Skaria, had not been approved.
8. However, as per the judgment in W.P.(C)No.20330/2008
and connected matters, the appointments made by the then
Manager, Sri.P.J.Joseph, were directed to be approved and in the
same judgment, which also took in W.P.(C)No.2877/2009 filed by
Sri.Shine Skaria, his approval was also directed to be granted.
9. Obviously, therefore, the hurdles in Ext.P1(a) against the
petitioner have now been removed.
10. Of course, the learned Government Pleader says that,
apart from the reasons in Ext.P1(a), there is also a further problem
for the petitioner that the aforementioned Smt.Sali T. John, had
been promoted under Rule 43 Chapter XIVA of the KER since she
was working in the School as a Part Time Menial and that said
promotion has already been approved.
11. However, since this aspect has not been considered by
WP(C) NO. 31420 OF 2011
the DEO at all while Ext.P1(a) order has been issued, I am of the
view that entire matter will require to be reconsidered by the said
Authority, after hearing the petitioner and the Manager of the
School.
Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, setting aside
Ext.P1(a); and consequently directing the 4 th respondent - DEO to
reconsider the proposal for approval of the appointment of the
petitioner with effect from 11.08.2006, after affording him and the
Manager of the School and any other teacher who may be vitally
interested, an opportunity of being heard - either physically or
through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate
order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 31420 OF 2011
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31420/2011
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE MANAGER,
ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL &TTI.
EXT.P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/6480/2006/K.DIS OF THE
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.2877/2009-P
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
