Deepa Rani .M vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16566 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020
PETITIONER:


          DEEPA RANI .M., AGED 39 YEARS
          W/O. FAZALUDHEEN, DEEPA MANZIL, KOTTUKKAL, KOTTUKKAL
          P.O., ANCHAL (VIA.), KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 519

          SAIJO HASSAN
          SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
          SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
          SRI.U.M.HASSAN
          SMT.P.PARVATHY
          SMT.SURYA P SHAJI
          SHRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H.
          SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY


RESPONDENTS:


    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005

    2     THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014

    3     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 035

    4     THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 534

    5     THE MANAGER,
          L.P.S., THACHONAM, VATTATHAMARA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT - 691 536

    6     THE HEAD MASTER,
          L.P.S., THACHONAM, VATTATHAMARA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT - 691 536
 WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

                                     2




     7          JAIJITH,
                S/O. JAYAPRAKASH, GODLY NIVAS, KUTTIKAD P.O.,
                KADAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 536

                SRI. V. VENUGOPAL - GP




         THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION        ON   11.08.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

                                    3


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a Lower

Primary School Teacher (LPSA) in the services of the "L.P.S.",

Thachonam, Kollam, has approached this Court impugning

Ext.P6 order of the Government, as per which, it rejected her

plea for being appointed to the vacancy which arose on

01.06.2016.

2. According to the petitioner, even though her name had

been proposed by the Manager to the said post more than once

before, while Ext.P6 was issued the said Authority appears to

have adopted a volte face and to have supported the 7th

respondent and consequently that her claim for being

appointed to the vacancy in question has not been considered

by the Government in its proper perspective.

3. The petitioner points out that, in Ext.P6, the

Government has taken a view that it is for the Manager to

decide who among the 7th respondent or herself is to be

appointed to the vacancy. The petitioner says that this stand

taken of the Government in Ext.P6 is illegal because it has WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

been issued without properly appreciating her contentions.

She, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and the

Government be directed to either reconsider the matter or to

order the approval of her appointment from 01.06.2016.

4. I have heard Sri.V.K.Rafeek, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.V.Venugopal, the learned Government

Pleader.

5. There was no appearance on behalf of the 7 th

respondent and I am, therefore, constrained to dispose of this

writ petition without hearing his version.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that

there is nothing wrong in Ext.P6 because it only says that the

discretion to appoint one among the 7 th respondent and the

petitioner is with the Manager because, admittedly, there is

only one vacancy that could have been filled up; while the

other being reserved for being filled up by a protected teacher.

He asserted that, therefore, the Government has acted

correctly in having issued Ext.P6 and prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

7. I have considered the afore submissions and have also

gone through the materials available on record.

8. As is indubitable from Exts.P1 and P3 orders issued by

the competent educational Authorities at the first instance, the

petitioner's approval of appointment with effect from

01.06.2016 has been rejected solely saying that the Manager

had not appointed a protected teacher, because the school is a

"newly opened" one. Therefore, in normal circumstances,

once the Manager had appointed a protected teacher, then

certainly this objection would not continue to be tenable.

9. However, the factual circumstances involved in this

case would show that even though the Manager had found the

petitioner eligible for being appointed to the vacancy arising

on 01.06.2016 earlier, he changed his mind on the allegation

that she had misbehaved with certain teachers/parents of the

school. However, as is luculent from Ext.P7, P8 and P9

certificates issued by the Headmistress of the School, no

allegation has been made against the petitioner and in fact,

the said Authority has certified her conduct and character to WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

be good. These aspects have not been considered by the

Government when they took a view in Ext.P6 that it is for the

Manager to take a decision as to who is to be appointed among

the petitioner and the 7th respondent.

10. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the matter will

require to be reconsidered by the Government, after hearing

the petitioner and the Manager of the School, thus culminating

in an appropriate order thereon without any further delay.

11. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition

and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the

competent Authority of the Government to reconsider the

matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner, the seventh respondent and the Manager of the

School - either physically or through video conferencing - thus

culminating in an appropriate decision thereon within a period

of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed,

the Government will advert to every contention of the WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

petitioner as also to the certificates of conduct which have

been produced before this Court as Exts.P7 to P9 and will test

the allegation of the Manager of incompetence against the

petitioner from its touchstone.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 2300 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2300/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/1605/16 DATED 17.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEACHERS TRAINING DETAILS OF THE BLOCK RESCUE CENTRE, CHADAYAMANGALAM

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.C-

558/19/K.DIS. DATED 14.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.06.2019

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2019 IN W.P.(C)18722/2019

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(R.T)5691/2019 G.EDN. DATED 28.12.2019

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. L.P. SCHOOL KANIANCHIRA DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2001-2002

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. L.P.SCHOOL KOTTUKALL FROM 27.06.2005 TO 18.10.2005

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. L.P. SCHOOL 26.06.2007 TO 04.09.2007