Kerala High Court
The Manager vs The Manager on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.81 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18724/2012 DATED 02-02-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3:
THE MANAGER,
NAVAJEEVAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
PERDALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671551.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 TO 6:
1 MANOJ KUMAR V.
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.NARAYANAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT KATTMBALLY HOUSE, CHEMNAD POST,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671317.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673001.
4 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF HSST
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER/PRINCIPAL,
NAVJEEVAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERDALA P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671551.
5 SREENATH E.
HSST (COMPUTER APPLICATION), NAVJEEVAN HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, PERDALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671551.
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
R2 & R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER FOR R-2 B/O
R6 BY GOVT PLEADER FOR R-6 B/O
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. RAJI. T. BHASKAR-G.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2021, ALONG WITH
WA.2475/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.81/2018 & 2475/2017 -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.2475 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06-11-2017 IN RP No.391/2015 IN WPC 18724/2012 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.3:
THE MANAGER,
NAVAJEEVAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
PERDALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671551.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 TO 6:
1 MANOJ KUMAR.V.
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.NARAYANAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT KATTAMBALLY HOUSE, CHEMNAD POST,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671317.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673001.
4 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF HSST
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER/PRINCIPAL,
NAVJEEVAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERDALA P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671551.
5 SREENATH E.
HSST (COMPUTER APPLICATION), NAVJEEVAN HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, PERDALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671551.
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2021, ALONG WITH
WA.81/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.81/2018 & 2475/2017 -3-
JUDGMENT
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
Gopinath, J:
Writ Appeal No. 81/2018 has been filed by the 3rd respondent in the
W.P (C)No.18724/2012 challenging judgment dated 02-02-2015 in the writ
petition. The short facts are that the writ petitioner's candidature for
appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) was not
considered by the appellant who is the Manager of the school on the
ground that he had not produced the originals of the documents evidencing
his qualifications etc. Facts of the case show that the documents in question
were with the appellant/Manager itself since the writ petitioner was
working as Guest Lecturer in the school under the very same Manager and
that the Manager had purposefully delayed the return of the originals to the
writ petitioner as a result of which the writ petitioner was completely
excluded from the selection process.
2. The learned Single Judge has specifically found that the action
of the Manager was malafide. The learned Single Judge considering the fact
that several years had passed after the selection, did not set aside the
selection made, but, instead directed the writ petitioner be compensated by
the Manager. The learned Single Judge fixed the amount of compensation
as Rs.5,00,000/- and also directed payment of litigation cost of
Rs.20,000/-. The learned Single Judge had also found that the selected
candidate was entitled to be approved. Further, on the finding that the
Manager's action was completely malafide the learned Single Judge
directed the Educational authorities to remove the appellant/Manager
from office through appropriate proceedings. Though the learned counsel
for the appellant has attempted to demonstrate that the findings recorded
by the learned Single Judge are not correct, we find no reason to take a
different view.
3. However, we believe that upon the appellant/Manager paying
the amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge to remove the
appellant/Manager from the school and the order to pay litigation cost of
Rs.20,000/- can be set aside. The learned counsel for the parties have no
objection to this course of action. We are also of the opinion that the
payment of compensatory cost and removal from Managership would
amount to inflicting a double penalty on the Manager. We also notice that
the Writ Petitioner is stated to be gainfully employed abroad. Therefore, we
had, on 5.2.2021 directed the learned counsel for the appellant to instruct
his client to pay the amount forthwith and had adjourned the matter to
today. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant has handed over a
Demand Draft for Rs.5,00,000/- to the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent/ Writ Petitioner. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No. 81/2018 stands
disposed of setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to
the educational authorities to initiate action to remove the Manager from
office. If any proceedings have been initiated against the Manager under
the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the same shall stand
terminated by this judgment. The direction issued by the learned Single
Judge to the appellant /Manager to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- is
also set aside. It is made clear that the appointment of the 5th respondent
(Sreenath.E) as HSST (Computer Application) shall be approved if the
same has not already been approved as directed by the learned Single
Judge.
4. Writ Appeal No. 2475/2017 which has been filed by the
appellant challenging an order dismissing a petition seeking review of the
judgment in W.P (C) No.18724/2012 is dismissed as no Writ Appeal is
maintainable against an order rejecting an application seeking review.
Further, in the light of the judgment in WA No.81/2018, no orders
are necessary in WA No.2475/2017.
(Sd/-)
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
(Sd/-)
GOPINATH P., JUDGE.
AMG
