Annie T.A vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6234 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.3019 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               ANNIE T.A
               AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.PAULSON,
               FORMER HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM),
               NOW WORKING AS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER
               (MALAYALAM), ST. GEORGE HSS, THIZHIYUR P.O.
               THRISSUR 680 520, RESIDING AT VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE,
               ANJOOR P.O KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 523.

               BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
               GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX),
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               (FORMER DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION),
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

      3        THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
               SECONDARY EDUCATION, S.R.V.G.H.S.S. BUILDING,
               ERNAKULAM 682 011.

      4        THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
               ST. GEORGE H.S.S, THOZHIYUR ,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 520.

               SR GP, NISHA BOSE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3019 OF 2021

                                         2



                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"1) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 and set aside the same by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari;

2) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3 rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.S.T. Junior Malayalam in 4 th respondent School with effect from 6.6.2019 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.

3) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be approved in the post of H.S.S.T. Junior Malayalam with effect from 6.6.2019 with all consequential benefits"

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

approval for the appointment of the petitioner as HSST by-transfer

has been rejected by Ext.P6 on the ground that the petitioner was not

appointed by a selection committee constituted with a Government

nominee on board. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on

Ext.P7 Government Order to contend that no Government nominee is

required when the appointment is effected by-transfer. WP(C).No.3019 OF 2021

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P7

Government Order refers to appointments made only by transfer. It is

stated that in the instant case, certain appointments had been made

by direct recruitment as well and that, therefore, the provision in

Ext.P7 that no Government nominee is required in the selection

committee for the approval of the petitioner's appointment is not

correct. It is further submitted that there is a writ petition filed by a

Guest lecturer as W.P.(C).No.27082/2020 and though the petitioner's

appointment is not under challenge specifically, the issue of

appointment in the school is under challenge in the said writ petition,

which is pending. It is further submitted by the learned Government

Pleader that even though the issue of necessity of selection committee

for appointment to the post of HSST by-transfer had been considered

by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).No.21194/2019 which

was taken in appeal in W.A.No.280/2020 and there is a direction to

consider the approval for appointment of the by-transfer appointee

without insisting on minutes of the selection committee, Ext.P7

Government Order has not been set aside by the learned Single Judge

or by the Division Bench.

WP(C).No.3019 OF 2021

5. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute

before me that the petitioner was appointed by transfer and that there

is no dispute raised as to the eligibility of the petitioner for

appointment. There is no senior claimant challenging the

appointment of the petitioner as well. The only reason stated in

Ext.P6 is that the proposal for approval of appointment has to be sent

up along with the minutes of the selection committee constituted with

a Government nominee in it. In W.A.No.280/2020, a Division Bench of

this Court has specifically held that since the appointment is by-

transfer, there is no necessity to constitute a selection committee for

selecting the candidates. There was a further direction that the

direction to issue orders of approval without insisting on the minutes

of selection committee would apply only to the petitioner, who is a by-

transfer appointee and with reference to direct recruits, appropriate

authority will have to verify the selection committee particulars

before granting approval. It is therefore clear that the contention that

the constitution of the selection committee with a Government

nominee on board is not required for the appointments to the post of

HSST by-transfer is accepted by the Division Bench of this Court as WP(C).No.3019 OF 2021

well.

6. In the above view of the matter, the direction contained in

Exts.P4 and P6 to the effect that the petitioner's appointment has to

be forwarded along with the minutes of the selection committee

constituted with a Government nominee is set aside. There will be a

direction to the 3rd respondent to take up the proposal forwarded for

approval of the petitioner's appointment by-transfer and to consider

the same without insisting on the production of the minutes of the

selection committee consisting of a Government nominee. Orders shall

be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C).No.3019 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) 14/2019/G.EDN. DATED 6.2.2019 (RELEVANT PAGES ONLY).

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 6.6.2019 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) 1428/2020/G.EDN.

DATED 28.3.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) 247/2019/G.EDN. DATED 21.1.2019.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITIONER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7.10.2020 WITH STAY PETITION TO FIRST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL