A.V.Ranjini vs The State Of Kerala Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 2558 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

      FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.3991 OF 2013(Y)


PETITIONER:

               A.V.RANJINI, AGED 35 YEARS, WIFE OF
               LAKSHMANAN, FULL-TIME URDU TEACHER,
               IRINGAL AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
               P.O.CHITHAPILAPOYIL, KANNUR
               DISTRICT- 670 502

               BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
               ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
               EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

      3        THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               TALIPARAMBA NORTH, P.O.TALIPARAMBA,
               KANNUR DISTRICT 670 141.

      4        THE MANAGER, IRINGAL AIDED UPPER PRIMARY
               SCHOOL, P.O.CHITHAPILAPOIYIL, KANNUR
               DISTRICT-670 502.

               R1 TO R3 BY SR. GP SRI.P.M.MANOJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 3991/13                               2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of January 2021

The petitioner says that she was appointed as a Full time

Urdu Teacher in Iringal Aided Upper Primary School, Kannur,

managed by the fourth respondent, with effect from 01.06.2010,

against a retirement vacancy. She says that, however, her

appointment was rejected by the third respondent Assistant

Educational Officer (AEO), constraining her to file an appeal before

the Government but that same has also been rejected through Exhibit

P5, which, she asserts that, is not an order, but is in the form of a

letter.

2. The petitioner says that, in any event of the matter, the

contents of Exhibit P5 are egregiously improper, since what is

recorded therein is that the retirement vacancy, against which she

was appointed, can only be seen as an additional one and hence that

her approval cannot be granted, though the Government itself had

earlier issued orders instructing the competent Educational Officers

that Full Time posts are liable to be restored against the retirement

vacancies and to grant approval to them.

3. The petitioner asserts that she is also entitled to similar

relief and that she, therefore, preferred a statutory Revision before

the Government, but which was also rejected through Exhibit P7

order. She, therefore, prays that Exhibits P5 and P7 be quashed and

the first respondent be directed to consider Exhibit P8 Review

Petition filed by her at the earliest.

4. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader

submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, wherein

the following have been stated:

"With regard to Para 3, it is submitted Sri.C.Musthafa, Full Time Urdu Teacher retired from service on 31.05.2010 A.N. He was enjoying the benefit of Full time as per G.O.(MS) 62/73/G.Edn dated 01.05.1973. Due to his retirement, the post of Urdu Teacher was converted as Part Time as per w.e.f. 15.07.2010 during the fixation of staff strength for the year 2010-11 as per this Office Order No.DDis/C/2351/2010 dated 04.01.2011, only 12 periods were available for Urdu.

With regard to para4, it is submitted that petitioner was appointed as Full Time Urdu Teacher in Iringal U.P.School w.e.f. 01.06.2010 in the retirement vacancy of Sri.C.Musthafa who retired from service on 31.05.2010. The above appointment was rejected by this office as per Order No.KDis/C/1840/2010 dated 09.02.2011 as the conditions laid down in G.O.(P) 10/2010 was not fulfilled by the Manager of the school. As per the clarification Letter No. 5119/J2/ 2011/GEdn dated 21.02.2011 and Letter No.15566/J2/2011/G.Edn dated 12.05.2011 that the vacancies arose due to retirement, resignation, death, transfer and dismissals will have to be filled up with protected teachers.

It is submitted that, while teacher's package was introduced petitioner's name was included in the list of eligible teachers for approval as Sl.No.39 as per Order dated 13.12.2011 and her appointment was approved as Part Time Urdu teacher w.e.f. 01.06.2011 as per this officer Order No.KDis/C/4331/2011 dated

24.12.2011 with reference to G.O.(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.10.2011 and order No.H2/35920/2011/DPI dated 13.12.2011. Petitioner's request for granting Full Time benefit by allowing diversion of periods from Group C Subjects was also rejected by the Government as per Order No.34385/S2/2012/GEdn. Dated 29.12.2012. Government is the final authority to take appropriate decision against the Review Petition of the petitioner."

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader thus submitted

that, therefore, the prayers sought for in this writ petition may not be

acceded to, but that if this Court is so inclined, the Government is

willing to consider the Review Petition, namely Exhibit P8, as per law.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable

that Exhibit P7 is not an order but only in the form of a letter. It has

been well settled, through a series of judgments of this Court, that

such proceedings cannot find favour in law. I am, therefore, of the

view that Exhibit P7 must fail and that the Government must

reconsider the matter, taking note of the contents of Exhibit P8

Review Petition also, which, however, shall be treated as an additional

representation of the petitioner, since I am aware that there is no

statutory provision enabling filing of such a review petition.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set

aside Exhibit P7, so as to pave way for a fresh consideration of the

petitioner's case by the competent Secretary of the Government,

which shall be done after affording an opportunity of being heard to

the petitioner, as also the Manager of the school - either physically or

through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate

decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four

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

I make it clear that while the afore exercise is completed, the

contents of Exhibit P8 Review Petition shall also be adverted to by the

competent Secretary, however, construing it to be an additional

representation of the petitioner.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2010

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.10/10/G.EDN. DATED 12.01.2010 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.317/2005/G.EDN. DATED 17.8.2005 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2010-2011 DATED 01.01.2011

EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G4/9578/2012/DPI/K.DIS DATED 24.4.2012 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.65391/S2/2011/G.EDN. DATED 24.01.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXT. P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.11897/S1/2011/G.EDN. DATED 30.6.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.34385/S2/12/G.EDN. DATED 29.12.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 08.01.2013

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE