Jolly Paul vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3467 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.19335 OF 2011(N)


PETITIONER:

               JOLLY PAUL, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE,
               PUNNAKUNNATHUCHERRY POST, ALAPPUZHA.

               BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

RESPONDENTS:

        1      STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
               SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

        2      THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
               GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

        3      THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

        4      THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               KOTTAYAM-686001.

        5      THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CO-OPERATE
               EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF C.M.I.SCHOOLS, PROVINCE OF
               ST.JOSEPH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

ADDL.   6      SHIBU K.MATHEW,
               S/O K.K.MATHAPPAN, KIZAKKEAKUDYIL HOUSE,
               MANNANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

               (ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
               03/07/2017 IN IA NO.9030/17)

               SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN
               SRI.JOMY GEORGE
               SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SR.
               SMT.LIZA POWELL
               SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
               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.19335 OF 2011(N)

                                          2



                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

The petitioner, who is stated to have been appointed as a

Full Time Menial in the "St.Ephrem's High School",

Mannanam, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P12

order, contending that she ought to have been appointed to a

higher post commensurate to her qualifications. The

petitioner asserts that her husband died while in service of the

"St.Joseph's High School" on 03.08.1996 and even though she

had been repeatedely approaching the 5 th respondent -

Corporate Manager for appointment under the Dying-in-

harness Scheme, she has been offered only the job of Full

Time Menial and that too after 15 years without taking note of

her high qualifications. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P12 be

set aside and the fifth respondent - Corporate Manager be

directed to appoint her either as a Clerk or a Lab Assistant or

a Peon, adverting to her qualifications.

2. Even though I have heard Sri.B.Krishnamani, the

learned counsel for the petitioner, on the afore lines, it is WP(C).No.19335 OF 2011(N)

indubitable that the petitioner has now crossed the age of 60

and cannot seek to be appointed in the school any further.

Her only grievance is that though she was eligible to have

been appointed to a better post reckoning her qualifications,

that the fifth respondent - Corporate Manager had chosen to

appoint her only as a Full Time Menial.

3. Even if I am to find in favour of the petitioner, the fact

remains that for the last nine years, this writ petition has been

pending before this Court. The petitioner's claim has now

become virtually infructuous, since I cannot direct her to be

appointed retrospectively to a post as claimed by her.

4. That apart, it is now well known that under the Dying-

in-harness Scheme published by the Government through its

order dated 24.05.1999, a person can be appointed only to

Class III and Class IV posts in the Subordinate Service, Last

grade service and in part-time Contigent Service to which

direct recruitment is one of the methods of appointment. and

that the petitioner has been so appointed. Of course, she may

have a legitimate claim of being appointed to a higher post

within these categories but since she has already WP(C).No.19335 OF 2011(N)

superannuated, it cannot be possible for this Court to grant

her any such relief at this time.

5. Before I conclude, I must also record that

Sri.B.Krishnamani, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

additionally argued that, since his client was granted an

appointment under Dying-in-harness Scheme only after 15

years of her husband's death, she is entitled to compensation.

6. However, I notice that there is no such prayer or

averment in this writ petition and that this has been urged

only at the Bar, which I cannot countenance at this stage,

particularly because the learned counsel for the Manager -

Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam, submits that the petitioner

had approached his client for appointment under dying-in-

harness much later after her husband's death, since she,

admittedly, was the President of the Champakulam Grama

Panchayat during the period between 2000 to 2005 and was

working as a Secretary of Punnamkunnathussery Service Co-

operative Bank, Punlinkunnu, Alappuzha prior to that; and

therefore that she could not have staked claim to any

employment in the School during these periods. WP(C).No.19335 OF 2011(N)

In the afore circumstances, I have no other option but to

close this writ petition finding that the reliefs sought for by

the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court at this distance

of time.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.19335 OF 2011(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 16/08/1996.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/09/1996.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01/01/1997 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 08/02/2008.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06/12/1999.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/12/1999.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/05/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/07/2008.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07/08/2008 IN EXHIBIT P7.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/06/2009 IN EXHIBIT P8.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/07/2009.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.