Kerala High Court
Shaheena P.A vs The State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER:
SHAHEENA P.A
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, JR LANGUAGE TECHER(URUDU)
(PART TIME) HUPS, POYLINGAPARAMBU AZHICODE.P.O,
THRISSUR-670009(RESIDING AT PATHAYAPPURAKKAOL HOUSE,
AZHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR-680666)
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD
SRI.A.RENJIT
SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, (ANNEXE
BUILDING) THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695004
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, POOJAPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DDE, THRISSUR-680003
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DEO, IRINJALAKKUDA-680125
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE AEO, KODUNGALLUR-680664
6 THE MANAGER
HUPS, POYLINGAPARAMBU, AZHICODE.P.O, THRISSUR-680003
7 THASLIM
OFFICE ATTENDANT, HUPS,POYLINGAPRAMBU, AZHICODE.P.O,
THRISSUR-670009
WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 2
8 SMITHA
CRC COORDINATOR, BRC, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR-680641
R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
R6 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA
R6 BY ADV. SHRI.SANTHOSH BHASKARAN NAIR
R6 BY ADV. SHRI.SABAD K.H.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4558 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be working
as a Junior Language Teacher in Urdu at the
HUPS, Poylingaparambu, Trissur - managed by the
6th respondent - has approached this Court
praying that Ext.P7 order issued by the 3rd
respondent - Deputy Director of Education
deploying the 8th respondent against the post in
which she is working be quashed; with a
resultant plea that the respondents be directed
to approve her appointment with effect from
06/06/2019, along with all service benefits.
2. Shri.T.T.Mahamood, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, submitted that
even though various assertions and allegations
have been made in this writ petition, it may not
be necessary for this Court to go into it in
detail at this time because, pending this lis, a
new vacancy has arisen in the post of 'Part-Time
Hindi Teacher' in the School on 31/03/2020 and
that since the Government has denied approval to
his client only because a protected teacher had
not been appointed - the School being a newly
upgraded one - if the Manager is willing to set
apart this vacancy to be filled up through a
protected teacher, the entire controversy can be
resolved.
3. On hearing the learned counsel as afore
on 06/01/2021 when this matter had been earlier
listed, I had passed the following order:-
"Shri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekara, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.6, submits that a
vacancy has arisen in the School in the post of
'Part-Time Hindi' on 31/03/2020 and that the
Manager is willing to set apart the same for being
filled up through a protected teacher.
I, therefore, direct Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior
Government Pleader, to obtain instructions as to
whether the 8th respondent, who is admittedly
deployed to the School in question, can be recalled
to her parent School.
List on 11/01/2021.
Interim order is extended until further orders."
4. Today, when this matter was called,
Shri.P.M.Manoj, learned Senior Government
Pleader, submitted that if the Manager is
willing to set apart the vacancy that arose in
the post of 'Part-Time Hindi Teacher' on
31/03/2020 for being filled up by a protected
teacher, the Government is willing to reconsider
the grant of approval to the petitioner with
effect from the date of her initial appointment.
5. Shri.Raju Sebastian Vadakkekara, learned
counsel appearing for the 6th respondent -
Manager, in response, submitted that his client
is willing to set apart the post of 'Part-Time
Hindi Teacher' which arose on 31/03/2020 for
being appointed by a Protected Teacher; and
prayed that the other appointment made by his
client, namely the 7th respondent as an Office
Attendant, be also directed to be approved by
the Educational Authorities.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the
parties as afore, the learned Senior Government
Pleader, Shri.P.M.Manoj submitted that since the
Manager is now ready to set apart the vacancy
that arose on 31/03/2020 for being appointed
through a protected teacher, the entire issue
can be reconsidered by the competent Educational
Authorities keeping this in mind.
7. The afore submissions of the parties
make it indubitable that the sole objection that
remains against the approval of the appointment
of the petitioner, namely, that a protected
teacher had not been appointed to the first
arising vacancy, because the School was a newly
upgraded one, does not really survive any
further.
8. That said, the 8th respondent, of course,
was deployed to the School as a protected
teacher to work in the post now being held by
the petitioner, but since the objection against
her approval now appear to be, at least prima
facie, capable of being rectified, I am of the
view that the 8th respondent can be redeployed
back at her parent School, she being a protected
teacher. This will not cause any prejudice to
the Government either because the 8th respondent,
being protected, would have to be paid her
salary for the entire period of time, in any
case.
In the afore circumstances, I order this
writ petition and set aside Ext.P7 and direct
the competent Secretary of the Government of
Kerala to reconsider the proposal for approval
of appointment of the petitioner, as well as the
7th respondent, taking note of the undertaking
made by the Manager that the post of 'Part-Time
Hindi Teacher', which arose on 31/03/2020, is
set apart for being filled up through a
protected teacher.
The afore exercise shall be completed by the
competent Educational Authority, after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner,
the 7th respondent and to the 6th respondent -
Manager - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in 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.
I clarify that the deployment of the 8th
respondent made through Ext.P7 shall not be a
ground to deny approval either to the petitioner
or to the 7th respondent, since I notice that
this Court had stayed the said deployment
through the interim order dated 18/02/2020 and
also because, in any event of the matter, she
can be redeployed to her parent School.
Needless to say, if after the afore
exercise, the appointments of the petitioner and
the 7th respondent are approved, all necessary
service benefits shall be afforded to them
without any avoidable delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/12.1.2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT, APPOINTING THE
PETITIONER AS PART TIME JR.LANGUAGE TEACHER
(URDU) W.E.F. 06.06.2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO D/5877/2019 DATED
06.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1/190657/2019 DATED
27.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED
03.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION G.O(P)
NO.3/2019/G.EDN DATED 28.02.2019
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D/4151/2019 DATED
18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE AEO TO THE HM
EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A-4151/2019 DATED
30.01.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B5/13580/2019 DATED
14.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO J2/57/2019/G.EDN
DATED 8.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
