Kerala High Court
Lissy Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.14142 OF 2020(P)
PETITIONER:
LISSY JOSEPH, PART TIME JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER
(HINDI), ST.MARYS U.P.SCHOOL, LOURDES,
THRISSUR-680 005
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE O F GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR-680020
4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR EAST, THRISSUR-680005
5 CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
ARCHDIOCESE OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR-680005,
6 HEADMISTRESS, ST.MARYS U.P.SCHOOL, LOURDES,
THRISSUR-680 005
R5-6 BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 14142/20
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she was
originally appointed as a Part-time Junior
Language Teacher in Hindi at St.Mary's
U.P.School, Trissur, with effect from
12.07.2016, as is evident from Ext.P1; but
that her approval had not been granted by the
Educational Authorities stating that said
school was an 'uneconomic' one.
2. The petitioner submits that she was,
thereafter, appointed to the post of Part-time
Junior Hindi Teacher in St.Mary's Lourdes,
Trissur, with effect from 20.06.2017, through
Ext.P2, but that when approval of the same was
sought, it has again been rejected, through
Ext.P4 by the District Educational Officer
(DEO), Trissur, on the ground that she had
been overaged when this appointment had been
offered to her.
3. The petitioner says that she,
WPC 14142/20
therefore, preferred a representation before
the Government which culminated in Ext.P6
order, whereby, her appointment from
12.07.2016 until 19.06.2017 has been approved
on daily wage basis, in view of the Government
Circular dated 06.11.2012; while her
appointment with effect from 20.06.2017 has
been rejected on the ground that she was over-
aged on that day. She says that, as is clear
from Ext.P6, her appointment through Ext.P2
has been seen to be a fresh one and that
solely therefore, the Government has taken the
view that she is not entitled to approval of
the same.
4 The petitioner asserts Ext.P6 order is
egregiously improper, since she has been
continuing in the school from 12.07.2016 and
therefore, that she ought to have been granted
approval for the appointment made by the
Manager through Ext.P2. She thus prays that
WPC 14142/20
Ext.P6 be set aside and the competent
Educational Authorities be directed to grant
approval to her appointment based on Ext.P2.
5. In response, Sri.Tony George
Kannamthanam - learned counsel appearing for
the Manager, submitted that the petitioner's
appointment through Ext.P1 was in an
'uneconomic' school and therefore, that she
could have been appointed only on daily wage
basis. He submitted that, subsequently, the
petitioner approached the Manager and
requested him to appoint her in a substantive
vacancy, saying that she will obtain an 'age
relaxation' order from the Government and that
Ext.P2 was thus issued, but that she did not,
thereafter, produce any such orders and
therefore, that the Manager is not responsible
for the events leading to Ext.P6. He,
therefore, prayed this Court may not issue any
further orders against his client, since he
WPC 14142/20
was only acting as per the specific request of
the petitioner, based on her promise that she
will obtain an 'age relaxation' order from the
Government.
6. Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned Senior
Government Pleader, contended that the
petitioner cannot impugn Ext.P6 order, since
it is indubitable that her appointment through
Ext.P1 was made to an 'uneconomic' school. He
submitted that since the school in which she
was appointed through Ext.P1 and the one in
which she was appointed subsequently through
Ext.P2, being two different categories of
schools, she cannot seek continuation and
therefore, that the latter appointment can
only be seen as a fresh one, which, however,
cannot be now approved since she has
admittedly crossed the maximum age at that
time. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ
Petition be dismissed.
WPC 14142/20
7. When I consider the afore rival
contentions, it is indubitable that the
petitioner was appointed in one of the schools
under the same management on 12.07.2016 and
she continued there until 19.06.2017, when she
was appointed into a substantive vacancy, with
effect from 20.06.2017, in another school.
Obviously, therefore, the petitioner is right
in contending that she has been working
continuously from 12.07.2016, though her
former spell has been in an 'uneconomic'
school; while the latter in an 'economic'
one. The Government takes the stand that since
these two schools belong to different
categories, the petitioner's appointment from
12.07.2016 cannot be seen to be continuous
with that of her appointment with effect from
20.06.2017 and that the latter appointment can
only be seen to be a fresh one.
8. I am, however, of the view that this
WPC 14142/20
rather technical interpretation to the various
circulars of the Government is unfortunate in
this case because, as is luculent from Ext.P6,
Government themselves admit that the
petitioner was working in 'St.Mary's
U.P.School', with effect from 12.07.2016 and
that she was continuing there until
19.06.2017, when she was reappointed to
'St.Mary's Lourdes School' on 20.06.2017, both
these schools being under the same management.
I am, therefore, of the firm view that
Government will require to reconsider the
petitioner's claim based on her contention
that she was continuously in service under the
same management, though in two different
schools and that it is not her fault that the
former school to which she was appointed was
an 'uneconomic' one, while the latter is not.
This is pertinent because the petitioner
cannot be found fault with in having been
WPC 14142/20
appointed to an 'uneconomic' school through
Ext.P1 and it is resultantly incumbent upon
the Government to consider this aspect also
before it could have issued an order like
Ext.P6.
In the afore circumstances, I set aside
Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the
competent Secretary of the Government to
reconsider the petitioner's claim for approval
of her appointment with effect from
20.06.2017, adverting to the plea that she was
not over-aged when she was admitted to
St.Mary's U.P. School on 12.07.2016, after
affording her as also the Manager an
opportunity of being heard - either physically
or through videoconferencing - thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
WPC 14142/20
Needless to say, any action taken by the
Manager pursuant to Ext.P7 will adhere to the
decision to be taken by the Government in this
regard; and the petitioner will be eligible to
all benefits as per the resultant order, if
she is found entitled, notwithstanding the
said proceedings.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 14142/20
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
BEARING NO.ED NO.A 621/2016 DATED
12.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.A 453/2017 DATED 20.06.2017
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
O.B/2348/18/K.DIS DATED 26.09.2018
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B1/8430/18/K.DIS DATED 07.06.2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
DATED 24.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G.EDN-
E1/19/2019-G EDN DATED 30.01.2020
ISSUE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO-ED.NO-A-
453/2017 DATED 12.1.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
