M.M.Najeeb Muhammed vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5093 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.9546 OF 2011(P)


PETITIONER:

               M.M.NAJEEB MUHAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED ISMAIL,
               AGED 31 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ARABIC),
               NAROKAVU HIGH SCHOOL, NAROKAVU,
               POST KUNNUMMEL POTTY, MALAPPURAM - 679 331.

               BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
                        SRI.K.E.HAMSA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
               DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
               JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               DOWN HILL, POST MALAPPURAM, 676 519.

      4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM 679 328.

      5        THE MANAGER, NAROKAVU HIGH SCHOOL,
               NAROKAVU, POST KUNNUMMEL POTTY,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 331.

               BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
                        SRI.P.M. MANOJ (SR.GP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9546 OF 2011(P)

                                -2-


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of February 2021

When this matter was called today, the

learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj,

submitted that the petitioner cannot have any

subsisting grievances in this writ petition,

since, pending this case the District Educational

Officer (DEO) has issued an order bearing No.

K.Dis./A5/2314/11 dated 19.12.2011 granting

approval to the appointment of the petitioner from

22.08.2008 to 31.03.2009 on daily wages and from

01.06.2009 regularly. The learned Senior

Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's

approval for the period from 22.08.2008 to

31.03.2009 has been granted on daily wages, since

she had worked less than 8 months in the said

academic year.

2. Even when I hear the learned Senior WP(C).No.9546 OF 2011(P)

Government Pleader on the afore lines, the fact

remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has,

Subsequently, declared the law in Sneha Cherian v.

State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 755], that even

spells of less than 8 months service are eligible

for approval and it becomes, therefore,

irrefutable that the petitioner's claim for

approval substantively from 22.08.2008 to

31.05.2009, including the period of vacation, will

also have to be now considered by the DEO.

In the afore circumstances, notwithstanding

the aforementioned order dated 19.12.2011 issued

by the DEO, I order this writ petition and direct

the said Authority to hear the petitioner and the

Manager of the School again and to consider the

grant of substantive approval to the petitioner

between the period 22.08.2008 and 31.05.2009,

adverting to the ratio in Sneha Cherian (supra).

Needless to say, the afore exercise shall be WP(C).No.9546 OF 2011(P)

completed by the DEO, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

the Manager of the School - either physically or

through video conferencing - thus leading to an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

It is made clear that, after completion of

the afore exercise, if the petitioner is found

entitled to approval substantively, then the

resultant benefit also be disbursed to him without

any avoidable delay thereafter.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C).No.9546 OF 2011(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS A4/5232/08 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) NO. 10/10/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN STAMP PAPER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B3/17344/2010/L.DIS OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.

B3/19250/2010/L.DIS OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

EXHIBIT P5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO. 2563/2008.

EXHIBIT P5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (P) N0.56/11/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE MANAGER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 30364/2010-U.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO. 717/11/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.46/06/G.EDN DATED 1.2.2006.

EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.38929/J1/2009/GEN.EDN DATED 19.11.09.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE