Kerala High Court
Reena Anto P vs The State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2021
WP(C) NO. 17398 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17398 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
REENA ANTO P.,.
AGED 59 YEARS,
WIFE OF C JOY JOS, PRINCIPAL (RETIRED) ST. JOSEPH'S
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR
DISTRICT (RESIDING AT CHIRAMEL HOUSE, USHUS,
ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 618.
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT/S:
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,
(HIGHER SECONDARY WING),
HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, S.R.V.G.H.S.S
BUILDINGS, KASTHOORIRANGAN HALL, ERNAKULAM 682 016.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR 680 020.
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF THRISSUR,
THRISSUR 680 001.
WP(C) NO. 17398 OF 2021 2
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17398 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she had worked as the Headmistress in St.
Antony's High School, Puthenpeedika under the 5th respondent
management from 1.4.2009 onwards. On 14.12.2011, she was appointed as
the Principal in the St.Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Avinissery, in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 Chapter XXXII of the KER, 1959
applying the 2:1 ratio. She retired from service on 31.3.2018. The grievance
of the petitioner that the respondents have not granted approval as the
Principal thus preventing the petitioner from obtaining various benefits. In
the said circumstances, narrating her grievances, the petitioner is stated to
have preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 1st respondent seeking
indulgence. It is in the above background that the petitioner is before this
Court seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the 3rd respondent to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as Principal from 14.12.2011
onwards.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or
direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders upon Exhibit-P7 after affording an opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner within a time limit."
2. I have heard Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Sri.M.Sajjad submitted that the limited request of the petitioner
before this Court is for a direction to the 1st respondent to expeditiously
consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation within a time frame.
3. Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that Ext.P7 is a representation submitted by the 5th respondent
before the respondents 1 and 2 on 6.9.2013. Ext.P9 on the other hand is a
mercy petition submitted by the petitioner on 14.8.2018. Reliance is also
placed on Ext.P8 and it was pointed out that the 2nd respondent had
informed the 1st respondent way back in 3.3.2014 that the eligibility for the
post of Principal in the school is from creation of senior HSST post, i.e., with
effect from 23.2.2013. According to the learned Government Pleader, it
would be far fetched to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7
representation at this point of time.
4. Faced with the above submission made by the learned
Government Pleader, Sri.Sajjad submitted that the petitioner shall prefer
fresh representation before the concerned respondent within a period of ten
days from today and prays that necessary directions be issued to consider
the said representation on its merits.
5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this
writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by
issuing the following directions:
a) The petitioner shall, not later than 10 days from today, submit a
fresh representation narrating her grievances before the 1st
respondent. If any such representation is filed, as directed
above, the 1st respondent shall take up, consider and pass
appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being
heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or
her authorised representatives. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the
claims made by the petitioner and it would be open to the 1st
respondent to consider the grievance on its merits.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any
event, within a period of three months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ
petition along with the judgment before the concerned
respondent for further action.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17398/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 01.04.2009.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 14.12.2011.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE
RDD HSE, ERNAKULAM BY THE MANAGER (E.D.
NO. A-1418/2011 DATED 14.12.2011).
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDT. NO.
B2/21564/RDDE/2013/N. DIS DATED
14.05.2013 OF THE RDD HSE, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR
THE YEAR 2010 TO 2011 OF THE RDD HSE,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR
THE YEAR 2011-2012 TO 2012-2013 OF THE
RDD HSE, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE
THE GOVERNMENT BY THE MANAGER DATED
06.09.2013.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
ACD.A2/4988/HSE/2014 DATED 03.03.2014 OF
THE DIRECTOR.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MERCY PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION DATED
14.08.2018 BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.
2913/2021/G.EDN, DATED 02.06.2021 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2016 KHC 419 DECIDED ON 26.02.2016.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
