Sibin Jose vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1829 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

     MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1269 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

               SIBIN JOSE
               AGED 22 YEARS
               S/O.C.T.JOSE, OFFICE ATTENDANT, M.K.M.C UPPER PRIMARY
               SCHOOL, NENMANIKKARA, PUDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680301,
               RES. CHALISSERY HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA, PUDUKAD P.O.,
               THRISSUR-680301.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.T.THOMAS
               SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
               DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
               695001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.

      3        THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR-680121.

      4        THE MANAGER,
               M.K.M.C UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NENMANIKKARA, PUDUKAD
               P.O., THRISSUR-680301.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR GP NISHA BOSE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1269 OF 2021(G)

                                   2

                          JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

:a) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P2 order passed by the 2 nd respondent to the extent it fixes date of approval of appointment as 01.06.2016 instead of 01.01.2016 and on daily wage basis instead of scale of pay basis.

b) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Office Attendant in M.K.M.C.U.P School, Nenmanikkara w.e.f 01.01.2016 on scale of pay basis and to release all monetary benefits forthwith.

c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order of direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 and P6, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, after hearing the parties.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner had been appointed as Office Attendant in the

4th respondent school w.e.f 01.01.2016. It is submitted that

the appointment has been approved only w.e.f 01.06.2016 WP(C).No.1269 OF 2021(G)

by Ext.P1, that too, on daily wages. It is submitted that

seeking approval from 01.01.2016 onwards on a scale of pay

basis, the Manager as well as the petitioner have

approached the Government preferring Exts.P5 and P6

representations, which are liable to be considered by the 1 st

respondent in accordance with law. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that since the

appointment to the post of Office Attendant, there is no

restriction regarding the number of students and one post of

O.A is available in the school and the appointment cannot be

refused to be approved on any ground including that the

school is an uneconomic school.

4. Having considered contentions advanced and

having heard the learned Government Pleader as well, I am

of the opinion that since Exts.P5 and P6 representations

have been preferred by the petitioner as well as the

Manager before the Government, it is for the Government to

take an appropriate decision on the same.

5. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1 st WP(C).No.1269 OF 2021(G)

respondent to take up and consider Ext.P5 preferred by the

Manger and Ext.P6 preferred by the petitioner and to pass

orders thereon, after hearing the petitioner as well as the

Manager by any appropriate means including through video

conferencing. Orders shall be passed within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

If the petitioner's appointment is liable to be approved from

an earlier date, monetary benefits found due shall be

disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months

thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Bng/18.01.2021 WP(C).No.1269 OF 2021(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.01.2016 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.03.2018 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R2.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 29.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO R1.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 04.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1.