Reema R vs Guruvayur Devaswom
2021 Latest Caselaw 152 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

 TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.16179 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER:

              REEMA R.
              AGED 38 YEARS
              W/O.SHAJU SANKAR, 'SIVADAM', OUTER RING ROAD,
              NORTH NADA, GURUVAYUR-680101.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
              SMT.C.K.SHERIN

RESPONDENTS:

      1       GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
              GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.

      2       GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYUR,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.

      3       MANAGER,
              SREEKRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GURUVAYUR
              (ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM), THRISSUR
              DISTRICT-680101.

      4       HEADMISTRESS,
              SREEKRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GURUVAYUR,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.

              R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SC FOR GURUVAYUR
              DEVASWOM

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).16927/2020(M), THE COURT ON
05-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

                              2


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.16927 OF 2020(M)

PETITIONERS:
      1     BINDU B.KUMAR
            AGED 31 YEARS
            W/O. SAJI O. S., OTTUPARAKKARA HOUSE,
            THONOORKKARA P O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT - 680 586.

      2     SOUMYA P.
            AGED 30 YEARS
            W/O. ANOOP V., KAITHAKKATT HOUSE, KOTTAPPADI,
            GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 505.

            BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY

RESPONDENTS:
      1     GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
            GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680101,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.

      2     GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYUR,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680101.

      3     THE MANAGER
            SREEKRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GURUVAYUR
            (ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM), THRISSUR
            DISTRICT - 680101.

      4     HEADMISTRESS
            SREEKRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GURUVAYUR,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680101.

            R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-
11-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).16179/2020(V), THE COURT ON 05-
01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

                               3

                     ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
               ---------------------
              W.P.(C) Nos.16179 & 16927 of 2020
           ---------------------------
             Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021

                          JUDGMENT

The issue, which arises for consideration in these

writ petitions is with regard to the cancellation of

appointment of the petitioners as UPSA in the school

managed by the Guruvayur Devaswom.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in

these writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader

and the learned Standing Counsel for the Guruvayur

Devaswom.

3. In W.P.(C) No.16179 of 2020, the petitioner

contends that she was appointed as U.P.S.A in the school

by Ext.P7 appointment order dated 12.06.2020. It is

submitted that a notification had been issued on

16.10.2019 inviting applications for appointment of

U.P.S.A, H.S.A and Physical Education Teacher. A WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

selection was conducted and a ranked list was published

wherein the petitioner in W.P.(C) No16179/2020 was

included as Sl.No.3 while the petitioners in the other writ

petition were included as Sl.Nos.4 and 5 respectively. It

is stated that there were only two vacancies notified.

However, by Ext.P6 letter, the 4 th respondent addressed

the 3rd respondent - Manager for permission to make

appointments from the existing list to the arising

vacancies as well. It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16179/2020 that there

was one vacancy of U.P.S.A, which arose due to a

retirement on 31.03.2020 and it was against the said

retirement vacancy that the petitioner was appointed by

Ext.P7 order. It is submitted that when the petitioner

approached the respondents for joining duty, she was

told that her appointment order was cancelled. Ext.P9 is

the communication issued to the petitioner. It is stated

in Ext.P9 that the vacancy to which the petitioner was WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

appointed was not in existence and that the earlier

decision of the GDMC dated 12.06.2020 had been

cancelled by Ext.P10 resolution dated 15.06.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.16179 of 2020 would contend that a complaint raised

with regard to the appointments as also Ext.P10

resolution only covered the action of the Managing

Committee and the Administrator in having sought to

fill up vacancies, which had not yet arisen, from the

existing ranked list. It is submitted that the allegation

was only with regard to the appointments made against

the vacancies of U.P.S.A, which were to arise only in

future on account of promotions being effected to the

post of H.S.A. It is submitted that, in the petitioner's

case, the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed

was an existing vacancy of U.P.S.A and that as such, she

is eligible to be appointed against the said vacancy.

5. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16927/2020 had WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

been appointed against the anticipated vacancies of

U.P.S.A on account of the promotions to the post of

H.S.A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16927/2020 that the Managing

Committee had considered the request of the

Headmaster and had taken a resolution to fill up the

arising vacancies also from the existing ranked list. It is

submitted that since the list was in force, there was

absolutely no illegality in appointments being made

from the list to arising and anticipated vacancies as well.

It is contended that the action of the respondents in

having cancelled the order of appointment, without

hearing the petitioners, who had already been issued

with appointment orders, is completely illegal, unjust

and arbitrary. It is stated that it was only on account of

the fact that a complaint had been raised that the

appointment has been cancelled.

6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

in these writ petitions by the respondents 1 to 3. It is

submitted that the initial notification had been issued

specifically for filling up of one vacancy of H.S.A, two

vacancies of U.P.S.A and one vacancy of Physical

Education Teacher in the school. It is admitted that

Ext.P2 list was prepared in which six persons were

included for appointment to the post of U.P.S.A.

However, it is contended that since the notification was

only for appointment of two persons from the said list,

the list stood expired and no more appointments could

have been made therefrom. It is contended that, by

Ext.P3, the Committee had specifically decided that the

list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification would be

valid for the purpose of appointments to the notified

vacancies alone. It is, therefore, contended that the

decision taken by Ext.P4 to make appointments from the

list against arising and anticipated vacancies was

completely untenable. It is submitted that the said WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

decision had been rendered on the basis of a request

made by the Headmistress, which was apparently

recommended by the Administrator and that the said

decision has been cancelled by Ext.P10. It is further

contended that several complaints had been received

with regard to the extension of the ranked list to

vacancies other than those notified and that the said

malpractice had been done only to accommodate the

petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16179/2020, who is the wife of a

member of the Managing Committee. It is, therefore,

contended that the cancellation of the orders of

appointment are fully legal and valid.

7. The learned Government Pleader also

supported the stand of the management and submitted

that a ranked list, which was prepared for filling up the

notified vacancies alone could not have been extended

or operated for filling up of later vacancies as well.

8. I have considered the contentions advanced. WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

Ext.P1 notification produced along with W.P.(C)

No.16179/2020 would show that the notification was

inviting applications to the specified vacancies. There

were two vacancies of U.P.S.A, which was notified. Ext.P2

list was prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 for filling up the

notified vacancies alone. Ext.P3 decision was taken as

early as on 31.12.2019 that the rank list would be

operated for the purpose of filling up the notified

vacancy alone. Therefore, with the appointment of two

persons, the list stood expired. Thereafter, by Ext.P5, it

appears that a decision was taken to extend the period

of the list and to make appointments therefrom. Ext.P6

letter was issued by the Headmistress to the Manager

seeking appointments from the list. It appears that the

appointment orders were issued on the basis of the said

request. However, it is clear that on 15.06.2020, the

managing committee had again considered the matter.

It was found that the decision taken to extend the list WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

was not proper and the appointments made on the basis

of the extension was without considering the factual

aspects of the matter. The decision to give further

appointments from Ext.P2 list was, therefore, cancelled.

The Administrator had specifically stated that the

procedure for giving appointments from an expired list

was improper. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that Ext.P10 decision would also

cover only those vacancies, which were not in existence

as on the date when the appointment orders were

issued; I am of the opinion that the very act of the

respondents in having issued appointment orders from a

ranked list which had already expired by extending the

list was improper.

In the above view of the matter, the action taken by

the respondents in having cancelled the appointments

effected from a rank list, which was no longer in

existence cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. In WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

the result, I am of the opinion that the prayers sought

for in these writ petitions cannot be granted. These writ

petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Bng/08.12.2020 WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16179/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.R1-

8205/2019 DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST NO.R1-8205/19 OF UPSA, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM SREE KRISHNA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.17 DATED 31.12.2019 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.12.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH THE NOTES OF 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADMINISTRATOR OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM WHICH ARE DATED 16.1.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.6 DATED 16.1.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EC1-4075/2020 DATED 12.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND DATED 17.6.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EC1-4075/2020 DATED 22.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.1 DATED 15.6.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT IS SEEN UPLOADED IN THE FACEBOOK

EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2 DT 16/7/2020 PF TE 2ND RESPONDENT WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16927/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.R1-8205/2019 DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.17 DATED 31.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.6 DATED 16.01.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT VIDE NO.EC1-4075/2020 DATED 12.06.2020 ISSUED TO BOTH THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.EC1-

4075/2020 DATED 18.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 15.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2020 IN W.P.(C) 16179 OF 2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2 A A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.14.12.2019 (MISTAKENLY NOTED AS 14.12.2020) SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WP(C).Nos.16179 & 16927 OF 2020

EXHIBIT R2 B A TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT IS SEEN UPLOADED IN THE FACEBOOK

EXHIBIT R2 C A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO-2 DT.16.7.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT