Vineetha A.C vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17698 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17350 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. 17350 OF 2021


PETITIONER/S:




          VINEETHA A.C.,
          AGED 33 YEARS,
          WIFE OF DEEPAK S. DAS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER
          (UPST), M V HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR, P.O.
          POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525.

          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD




RESPONDENT/S:

    1     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
          KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.

    4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 121.

    5     THE MANAGER,
          M V HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR,
          NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 525.
 WP(C) NO. 17350 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. 17350 OF 2021                3




                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPST in the M.V.

Higher Secondary School, Arumanoor, managed by the 5th respondent with

effect from 22.6.2011. She contends that the appointment was against a

vacancy arising from the promotion of Smt. T. Jijila, HST (English) in a new

division vacancy. She asserts that the approval of the promotee and the

petitioner was delayed due to various reasons, despite the fact that the

petitioner was continuing as UPST from the date of appointment onwards. In

the said circumstances, narrating her grievances and requesting immediate

action, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P5 representation before

the Government. Pursuant thereto, she has approached this Court with this

writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit-P4 and set aside the original of the same to the extent it is denied protection and deployment by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get protection and continuity in service.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to grant protection to the petitioner in the parent School until deployment.

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass

appropriate orders upon Exhibit-P5 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit."

2. Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for expeditious

consideration of Ext.P5 within a time frame. Heard Smt.Nisha Bose, the

learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. 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) Without expressing any opinion on the assertion in Ext.P5

representation, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit-P5 after

affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representatives

as well as the affected parties, if any.

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.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17350/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.6.2011.

Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
                    NO.11310/2020 DATED 10.6.2020.

Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)

NO.372/2021/G.EDN. DATED 16.1.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/20069/2021 DATED 23.2.2021 OF THE DEO, NEYYATTINAKRA.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNEMNT DATED 30.7.2021.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL