Kerala High Court
Sahira Bhanu Moothedath vs The State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.23475 OF 2013(H)
PETITIONER:
SAHIRA BHANU MOOTHEDATH, AGED 28 YEARS
WIFE OF AYOOB, AMBALATHUVEETTIL, EDAVANNA,
MALAPPURAM (FORMER UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT
I.O.HIGH SCHOOL, EDAVANNA, MALAPPURAM).
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM-676519.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MALAPPURAM-676519.
5 THE MANAGER
ISLAHIYA ORIENTAL HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.EDAVANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676541.
SRI P M MANOJ SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 23475/13
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
impugning Ext.P6 on various grounds, but
primarily that it has been issued without
considering any of her claims and that it has
been framed in the form of a letter than an
order. She says that it is now well settled,
through a series of judgments of this Court
and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that
Government cannot issue orders in the nature
of Ext.P6 and it has to be framed in the form
of proper proceedings, as per the extant
Rules.
3. In response, Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned
Senior Government Pleader, submitted that even
though Ext.P6 has been issued in the form of a
letter, it contains the reasons as to why the
petitioner's claims have not been considered.
He submitted that, as is evident from the said
proceedings, the petitioner has been found to
WPC 23475/13
be not enjoining a claim under Rule 51A of the
Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) and
therefore, that she is not thus entitled to
the benefits claimed by her. He, however,
submitted that if this Court is so inclined,
Government is willing to reconsider the matter
and issue appropriate orders.
4. When I consider the afore submissions,
it is indubitable that Ext.P6 has been issued
in the format of a letter and is not an order.
For that reason alone, I am certain that this
Court cannot find favour with it and
obviously, therefore, Government will have to
re-consider the claim of the petitioner after
hearing her again.
In the afore circumstances, I order this
writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a
consequential direction to the Government to
reconsider Ext.P5 (styled as a 'Mercy
Petition', but which effectively construes the
WPC 23475/13
nature of a Revision under the provisions of
the KER) after affording an opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner - either
physically or through videoconferencing - thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 23475/13
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE
APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 28.6.2006 AND APPROVAL
THEREOF.
EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
DATED 8.8.2008.
EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
DATED 16.3.2009.
EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
1.7.2010.
EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MERCY
PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MINISTER DATED 10.5.2012.
EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10.4.2013.
EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE
CIRCULAR DATED 24.3.1999 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
