Molleykutty K.V. vs State Of Kerala Represented By ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3437 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.26929 OF 2011(M)


PETITIONER:

               MOLLEYKUTTY K.V., H.S.A.(NATURAL SCIENCE),
               ST.JOSEPH'S H.S.S., VAYATTUPARAMBA,
               P.O.VAYATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 582.

               BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
               GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      3        DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               KANNUR-670 001.

      4        DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               KASARGOD-671 001.

      5        DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               KANHANGAD-671 315, KASARGOD.

      6        THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE
               EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCH DIOCESE OF
               THALASSERRY, KANNUR-670 101.

               R1-R6 BY SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 26929/11                       2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

The petitioner says that she had worked as a High School

Assistant in Natural Science in the Schools managed by the fourth

respondent Corporate Manager for various spells and that they were

validly approved. She says that, thereafter, she was appointed as an

Upper Primary School Assistant in St.John's High School, Palavayal

with effect from 17.09.1998. She alleges that despite the fact that she

had several broken spells of service before the said date and though

she had been discharging continuous service, the approval was

illegallylimited to 31.03.1999.

2. The petitioner submits that she should have been granted

approval for the vacation period, going by Rule 49 Chapter XIVA of

the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and that she was under the

bonafide impression that the Manager was agitating her cause before

various Educational Authorities, but that she came to be aware that

all applications had been dismissed by them for the reason that they

were filed belatedly, finally culminating in Exhibit P14 order of the

Government dated 25.04.2009, which rejected the statutory Revision

filed by the Manager for the same reason.

3. The petitioner alleges that it is clear from Exhibits P10,

P12 and P14 orders that the delay occurred on account of the

negligence of the Manager and that since all of them have been

issued without giving her an opportunity of being heard, they cannot

be held against her. She, therefore, prays that Exhibits P10, P12 and

P14 orders be set aside and the competent Educational Authorities be

directed to grant her approval with effect from 17.09.1998, without

limiting it only to 31.03.1999.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner added to the afore

submissions by saying that pending this lis, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court delivered a judgment in State of Kerala and Others v. Sneha

Cheriyan and Another ((2013) 5 SCC 160), making it clear that

approval of a teacher appointed for a duration of less than eight

months cannot be declined and therefore, that, as matters now stand,

the petitioner is entitled to the benefits sought for in this writ

petition. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the competent

Educational Authorities be directed to issue orders in favour of the

petitioner, adverting to Sneha Cheriyan (supra).

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that

the Manager had not agitated the petitioner's claim for several years

after her approval had been rejected by the District Educational

Officer (DEO) and that same is not liable to be considered. He added

that the petitioner had also not challenged her rejection of approval

by the DEO at any time until now and therefore, prayed that she may

not be allowed any further latitude by this Court.

6. When I analyse the submissions as afore, Exhibits P10,

P12 and P14 orders have been issued by various authorities, including

the Government, on the applications of the Manager. It is no doubt

true that the petitioner had not approached any of the said

authorities, but I find justification in her explanation that she was

under the impression that the Manager had been agitating her cause

before the competent authorities. In fact, it is clear from the

impugned orders that he did so, albeit with considerable amount of

delay. It is, therefore, that the authorities have rejected such

applications, recording in the impugned orders that one of the

reasons for doing so is the delay caused by the Manager.

7. That said, it is also indubitable that the petitioner had

never been heard by any of the authorities and this is relevant

because the ultimate result is that the petitioner's approval has been

rejected.

8. That said, as matters now stand, the declaration of law by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneha Cheriyan (supra) would have

substantial bearing on the facts of this case and, therefore, the

petitioner must certainly be given liberty to have her version heard by

the competent authorities before she can be found not entitled to the

benefit of approval.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set

aside Exhibit P14 order; with a consequential direction to the

competent Secretary of the Government to re-consider the Revision

filed by the Manager, after affording an opportunity of being heard to

the petitioner as also the Manager of the School - either physically or

through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate

decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise,

Government will advert to the ratio in Sneha Cheriyan (supra) and

also the contention of the petitioner that she be granted approval with

effect from 17.09.1998, without limiting it to 31.03.1999.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHHIBITS:

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.1.1993

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.8.1994

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.9.1996

EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 17.9.1998

EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF ORDER

EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.1999

EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.6.2006

EXT. P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.1.2007

EXT. P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.2.2007

EXT. P11 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 7.4.2007

EXT. P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.1.2008

EXT. P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 29.2.2008

EXT. P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.4.2009

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE