Kerala High Court
Reena Antony vs The State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2021
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.21139 OF 2011(N)
PETITIONER:
REENA ANTONY
WIFE OF P.V.BABU, AGED 40 YEARS,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE),,
ST.GEORGE'S HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHENPALLY, VARAPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRERTARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM 695 014.
3 THE DISRTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101.
4 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
ARCHDIOCESAN CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY, RENEWAL CENTRE
KALOOR, KOCHI 17.
5 THE HEADMASTER
ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, PUTHENPALLY,
VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 517.
BY ADV.
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:
WP(C).No.21139 OF 2011 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be working
as a High School Teacher in Physical
Science in the service of the St.George's
High School, Puthenpally, Varappuzha and
she has approached this Court impugning
Ext.P6 order of the Additional Director of
Public Instructions (now re-designated as
Additional Director of General Education),
as per which, her approval for
appointment - with effect from
01.06.2010 - has been rejected solely on
account that the Manager had not appointed
a 'Protected Teacher', the School being a
"Newly Upgraded one".
2. Sri.M.Sajjad, learned counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the issues
impelled in this writ petition are now
covered in favour of his client, through
the judgment of this Court in Nadeera vs.
State of Kerala [2011(3) KLT 790] and
therefore, that Ext.P6 cannot now be found
sustainable. He, therefore, prayed that
Ext.P6 be set aside and the competent
Educational Authority be directed to grant
his client the benefit of approval with
effect from 01.06.2010.
3. The learned Senior Government
Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj, initially sought
time to file counter pleadings, but then
submitted that the petitioner's claim was
rejected on the basis of Rule 8 and Rule
8(a) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala
Education Rules (KER for short). He
submitted that since the School is a "Newly
Upgraded one", the Manager ought to have
appointed a Protected Teacher in terms of
the Government Order dated 19.11.2009 and
the fact that he had not done so, being
admitted, the petitioner cannot seek any
further claim. He, therefore, prays that
this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the afore
submissions and had gone through the
materials available on record.
5. It is now indubitable going by the
judgment of this Court in Nadeera (Supra)
that many of the issues urged in this writ
petition have already been answered by this
Court, and to some extent, in favour of the
petitioner. Ext.P6 order has been issued
on 13.07.2011 at a time when Nadeera
(Supra) had not been delivered by this
Court. Obviously, therefore, the matter
will require to be reconsidered by the
Additional Director of Public Instructions
(Additional Director of General Education)
appropriately after adverting to the ratio
of the afore cited judgment and after
hearing the petitioner also.
In the afore circumstances, I order
this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6;
with the consequential direction to the
Additional Director of General Education/
Director of General Education to
reconsider the matter and issue appropriate
orders thereon, adverting to the ratio of
Nadeera (Supra) and after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner and the 4th respondent -
Corporate Manager of the School - either
physically or through video conferencing -
thus culminating in an appropriate order
thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but
no later than three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/3.2.2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.EC4/81100/2009/DPI/K.DIS OF THE DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.5126/2010/G.EDN.
OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5-9767/10 OF
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
W.P(C)NO.4475/2011-H
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE
NO.EC4/12561/2011/DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EC4/12561/11/DPI
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.19979 OF 2008
-C
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING OF THE MANAGER
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G4/13715/2010/DPI/K.DIS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.52/11/G.EDN OF THE
GOVERNMENT
