Kerala High Court
Sri. Thomas C. Varghese vs Sri. Thomas C. Varghese on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.66 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2016 IN WPC 19563/2011
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
SRI. THOMAS C. VARGHESE,
MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
VADAKARA,OILIYAYAPPURAM P.O., KOOTHATUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686679
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.T.R.SADEESAN
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6:
1 SMT. BINDUMOL P. ABRAHAM.
W/O.BENNY K.MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, HEADMISTRESS,
ST/JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY, SCHOOL
VADAKARA, OILIYAPPURAM P.O.,KOOTHATUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686679, (RESIDING AT
KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE,KARIMPANA P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM)
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-, ERNAKULAM 682030
5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686661
6 SHRI.SHAJU K.M
W.A. Nos. 66, 67 & 69 of 2017 :2:
TEACHER IN CHARGE, ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA,OILIAYAPPURAM P.O.
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686679.
ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED.
7 REV.FATHER PAUL THOMAS PEECHIYIL,
(ASSISTANT VICAR,ST.THOMAS ORTHODOX SYRIAN
CHURCH,VADAKARA,KOOTHATTUKULAM,ERNAKULAM-686
679,APPROVED MANAGER,ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL,VADAKARA,OLIYAPPURAM
P.O.,KOOTHATTUKULAM,ERNAKULAM-686 679.
ADDL.7TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
08/01/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2019 IN WA 66/2017.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJI T BHASKAR
BY ADV.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
BY ADV.SRI.B.S.SWATHIKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WA.NO.67/2017, WA.NO.69/2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos. 66, 67 & 69 of 2017 :3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.67 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 12096/2012 DATED 27-09-2016
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
VADAKARA, OILIYAPPURAM P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -686679
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.T.R.SADEESAN
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4,6 AND 7:
1 SMT.BINDUMOL P.ABRAHAM
W/O. BENNY K.MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, HEADMISTRESS,
ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
VADAKARA, OILIAPURAM P.O, KOOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686679, (RESIDING AT
KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KARIMPANA,
KOOTHATTUKULAM)
2 STATE OF KERALA
W.A. Nos. 66, 67 & 69 of 2017 :4:
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682030
5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686661
6 SHRI SHAJU. K.M
TEACHER IN CHARGE, ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA,OILIYAPPURAM P.O.
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686679
7 JEMMY JOSEPH
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.MATHEW JACOB, HEADMISTRESS,
ST. JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
VADAKARA, OILIYAPPURAM PO, KOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686679 (RESIDING AT
KALKUTHUCHALIL PUTHEN PARAMBIL, VIKAS NAGAR, EAST
MARADY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA)
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJI T BHASKAR
BY ADV.SRI.E.D.GEORGE
BY ADV.SRI.V.A MUHAMMED
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WA.66/2017, WA.69/2017, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos. 66, 67 & 69 of 2017 :5:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.69 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.4633/2011 DATED 27-09-
2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
VADAKARA, OILIYAPPURAM P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 679.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.T.R.SADEESAN
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
3 SMT.BINDUMOL P.ABRAHAM
W.A. Nos. 66, 67 & 69 of 2017 :6:
HEADMISTRESS (UNDER SUSPENSION), ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA, OILIYAPPURAM
P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 679,
RESIDING AT KOZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KARIMPANA
P.O.,KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM-686 662.
4 SHRI.SHAJU K.M.
TEACHER IN CHARGE, ST.JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA, OILIYAPPURAM P.O.,
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 679.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJI T BHASKAR
BY ADV.SMT.ANILA RAVINDRAN
BY ADV.SRI.V.A MUHAMMED
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WA.66/2017, WA.67/2017, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos. 66, 67 & 69 of 2017 :7:
JUDGMENT
Gopinath P., J.
These Writ Appeals arise out of the common judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C). No.4633 of 2011 and
connected cases.
2. Shorn of all unnecessary detail, the facts are that one
Bindumol P.Abraham (hereinafter referred to as 'Bindumol'), who
was the Headmistress of the St.John's Syrian Higher Secondary
School was placed under suspension by the Manager through an
order dated 29.07.2010. The Deputy Director of Education
conducted a preliminary enquiry following the initial period of
suspension and refused an extension of the order of suspension.
The Manager challenged the order of the Deputy Director of
Education before the Government in a Revision Petition. He also
filed a stay petition seeking a stay of the order passed by the
Deputy Director of Education. He then approached this Court
through W.P(C). No.25819 of 2010, which was disposed by
directing the Government to decide on the stay petition and
granting a stay of the order of the Deputy Director of Education till
the Government issues orders on the stay petition. There was also
a direction issued to the Government to finally dispose the
Revision Petition. By an order dated 28.09.2010, the Government
dismissed the stay petition filed by the Manager. The Manager
challenged the order of the Government rejecting the stay petition
through W.P(C). No. 31634 of 2010.
3. It has to be noticed at this point that one Shaju K.M, who
was placed in charge of Headmaster on the suspension of
Bindumol, had challenged the initial appointment and approval of
Bindumol as Headmistress through W.P(C).No.28565 of 2010.
Bindumol also filed W.P(C).No.31321 of 2010 praying for a
direction to implement the orders in her favour. All the above
three Writ Petitions were disposed by a common judgment. The
challenge raised by the manager was repelled by this Court
principally on the ground that the Revision Petition had already
been heard on 22.11.2010. The challenge raised by Shaju K.M was
repelled on two grounds (i) that his challenge to the initial
appointment and approval of Bindumol was highly belated and (ii)
that if he was aggrieved by the initial appointment of Bindumol,
he has to avail statutory remedies. W.P(C).No.31321 of 2010 filed
by Bindumol was also closed on the ground that the Revision
Petition had already been heard on 22.11.2010 and leaving it open
to her to approach the Court again after final orders were passed
in the Revision Petition.
4. On 21.01.2011, the Government upheld the order
passed by the Deputy Director of Education directing
reinstatement of Bindumol by dismissing the Revision Petition
filed by the Manager. The Government, through the same order
also directed that the enquiry proceedings shall be completed in
the manner indicated in that order. The order dated 21.01.2011
was challenged by the Manager by filing W.P(C). No.4633 of 2011.
5. On 18.3.2011, the Deputy Director of Education had
drawn up an enquiry report in the disciplinary proceedings. The
Manager issued a show-cause notice on 30.03.2011 proposing
reversion of Bindumol as a High School Assistant. Thereafter,
rejecting the reply filed by Bindumol on 06.04.2011, the Manager
issued orders on 11.04.2011 reverting Bindumol as a High School
Assistant. Though the Deputy Director of Education had informed
the Manager that his order suffers from legal infirmities, in as
much as the penalty had been imposed by the Manager without
obtaining the sanction of the educational authorities, the Manager
did not take any action. On an appeal filed by Bindumol against
the order imposing the penalty, the Director of Public
Instructions, set aside the order of penalty and directed her
reinstatement as Headmistress through an order dated 14.09.2011
after finding that the punishment had been imposed by the
Manager without obtaining the sanction of the educational
authorities as required under the Statute.
6. On 07.10.2011, the Manager issued an order
implementing the order issued by the Director of Public
Instructions. The implementation of the order passed by the
Manager could however not take place on account of a challenge
raised against that order by Shaju K.M before the Government. As
already noticed above, Shaju K.M had also approached this Court
at the time when the Deputy Director of Education had refused the
extension of the order of suspension and this Court had found that
his challenge against the initial appointment and approval of
Bindumol as Headmistress was highly belated. Notwithstanding
the above, the aforesaid Shaju K.M chose to file a Revision Petition
against the order of the Director of Public Instructions before the
Government and the Government, surprisingly, considered the
Revision Petition and issued orders directing the reinstatement of
Bindumol as High School Assistant and permitting the Manager to
make a fresh selection under the law. This order of the
Government was challenged by Bindumol by filing
W.P(C).No.12096 of 2012. She had also earlier approached this
Court through W.P(C). No.19563 of 2011 seeking implementation
of the order dated 11.08.2010 directing her reinstatement
pursuant to the refusal of the Deputy Director to extend the order
of suspension. We may notice that the prayers in W.P(C). No.4633
of 2011 and that in W.P(C). No.19563 of 2011 essentially related to
orders at the stage of suspension and did not relate to the final
orders directing reinstatement of Bindumol following the
culmination of disciplinary proceedings. Those Writ Petitions,
therefore, had effectively become infructuous by the time the
matter was finally considered by this Court in the impugned
judgment.
7. In W.P(C). No.12096 of 2012, as already noticed, the
order impugned was the order passed by the Government at the
instance of the Shaju K.M, the Headmaster in charge, who
challenged the order of the Director of Public Instructions
directing the reinstatement of Bindumol as Headmistress finding
that the punishment imposed on her was not in accordance with
the law. This Court through the impugned judgment found that
the order of the Government at the instance of Shaju. K.M was
unsustainable. We have perused the order of the Government. It
defies all logic. The Government did not consider the legality of
the orders issued by the lower authorities in the disciplinary
proceedings. It did not consider the maintainability of a revision at
the instance of Shaju K.M against an order passed in disciplinary
proceedings against Bindumol. It did not consider the fact that the
challenge raised by Shaju K.M was repelled earlier by this Court
on the finding that his challenge to the initial appointment and
approval of Bindumol was highly belated (See judgment in W.P
(C).No.28565 of 2010). Shaju K.M had been given charge of the
post of Headmaster following the suspension of Bindumol. He
had no locus to challenge the final order issued by the Director of
Public Instructions following the culmination of disciplinary
proceedings finding that Bindumol should not be imposed with a
penalty of reversion as High School Assistant. The Government,
therefore, ought to have rejected the Revision Petition filed by
Shaju K.M., on the ground that, he had no locus to challenge the
order passed by the Director of Public Instructions on 14.09.2011.
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the finding of the
learned Single Judge that Ext.P.16 order in W.P(C). No.12096 of
2012 was illegal and unsustainable in law.
8. While the above finding of ours would have been
sufficient to dispose these Writ Appeals, considering the fact that
we have found that the reliefs sought for in W.P(C). No.4633 of
2011 and that in W.P(C). No.19563 of 2011 had effectively become
infructuous, the learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals
would contend that he is no longer the Manager of the school in
question as he was disqualified from managership in 2015. He
would further submit that following the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment directing the
Government to consider whether any recovery proceedings are to
be initiated against the Manager, the Deputy Director of
Education has issued an order dated 18.12.2020 which is placed
on record as Annexure A in W.A.No.66 of 2017 ordering the
recovery of certain amounts paid as arrears of salary to Bindumol,
from him. He would submit that in the entirety of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge ought not to
have directed any recovery proceedings to be initiated against the
then Manager, the appellant in W.A.No.66 of 2017.
9. Our reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge
does not lead us to conclude that the learned Single Judge had
issued any peremptory direction following which recovery
proceedings had to be initiated against the Manager by the
educational authorities. Going by the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge, any recovery was left to the discretion of the
educational authorities after ascertaining the question as to
whether there was any culpable action on the part of the Manager
warranting recovery of arrears of salary paid to Bindumol from
the then Manager. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to
clarify that no direction in the judgment impugned in these
appeals is to be taken as a peremptory direction to the educational
authorities, who will necessarily have to first ascertain whether
there was any culpable action on the part of the Manager
warranting a recovery before proceeding against him for
recovering the amounts paid as arrears to Bindumol following her
reinstatement. This is a matter that has to be considered by the
educational authorities based on the materials and any reply to be
submitted by the appellant pursuant to Annexure A. To enable the
conclusion of such proceedings we direct that Annexure A dated
18.12.2020 be treated as a show-cause notice and the appellant in
W.A.No.66 of 2017 (the then Manager) may file an appropriate
reply to the same following which the concerned authority will
decide on the question as to whether any recovery should be
ordered from the said appellant, and if so, what amount is to be
recovered considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.
This shall be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant, the then Manager. We reiterate that no direction in the
impugned judgment shall be treated as a mandate to order
recovery from the appellant. Let the needful be done within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These
Writ Appeals will stand disposed accordingly without interfering
with the impugned common judgment but only clarifying the
directions regarding recovery, as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
mns/16.02.2021
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.66 OF 2017
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.G1/28549/2018 DATED
18.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.3.2014 OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.69 OF 2017
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2011 ISSUED BY THE
VICAR OF THE CHURCH TO THE APPELLANT.
ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.3.2014 OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
