Deepthi V.V. vs Sreeshma P.M.
2021 Latest Caselaw 2957 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                RP.No.81 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 23390/2020

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23390/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:

               DEEPTHI V.V., AGED 36 YEARS
               W/O. MADHUSUDHANAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
               RAMAGURU UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11,
               RESIDING AT THALIYIL HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBA P.O.,
               KANNUR DISTRICT.

               SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
               SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        SREESHMA P.M., AGED 35 YEARS
               LPSA, RAMGURU UP SCHOOL, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670011.

      2        STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
               EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      3        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

      4        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               KANNUR-670002.

      5        THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670562.

      6        THE MANAGER, RAMAGURU UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
               CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670011.

      7        THE HEAD MASTER, RAMAGURU UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
               CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670011.

               SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL SR GP

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION               ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.81 OF 2021

                                    2



                                 ORDER

Dated this the 27th day of January 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

review of the judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2020 in W.P.

(C) No.23390/2020, stating that she has a better claim to be

appointed to the vacancy that arose in the school on

01.06.2009, than the writ petitioner Smt.Sreeshma. P.M.

2. The petitioner says that she was not arrayed as a party

in the aforementioned writ petition and therefore, that she

could not bring this to the notice of this Court; consequentially

that this Court has directed the Educational Authority to issue

orders approving the appointment of Smt.Sreeshma P.M.

3. The petitioner submits that the directions in the

judgment will have far reaching ratification against her,

especially because she has obtained Annexure H judgment as

early as on 18.02.2020 from this Court, in which her claim has

also been directed to be considered by the first respondent.

4. Even when I hear Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar on the afore

lines, the fact remains that, in the judgment sought to be

reviewed, I had considered the entitlement of the writ RP.No.81 OF 2021

petitioner based on the orders therein, particularly Ext.P7 and

subsequent order of the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO).

Since I have found the stand of the Authorities therein to be

untenable, I had directed that the petitioner will be issued

with orders approving her appointment. However, the

petitioner in this petition now says that she has a better claim

and that she has already approached the Government through

a representation, which has been disposed of in Annexure H

judgment.

5. I deem it, therefore, appropriate to order that the AEO,

while completing the exercise ordered in the judgment will also

hear the petitioner - Smt.Deepthi V.V. and further clarify that

the directions in the judgment, to approve the appointment of

Smt.Sreeshma, will be complied with if the claim of

Smt.Deepthi V.V. is found to be not superior to hers.

6. I further make it clear that the AEO will take a decision

as ordered herein without waiting for any decision to be taken

by the Government in terms of Annexure H judgment, since I

notice that Smt.Deepthi had not challenged the appointment of

Smt.Sreeshma in the said writ petition.

Since I have now modified the judgment in the writ RP.No.81 OF 2021

petition as afore, the time frame for compliance by the AEO

will stand extended until 15.02.2021.

With the afore clarification, this review petition is

disposed of.

                                       Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    Stu                                         JUDGE
 RP.No.81 OF 2021




                             APPENDIX
    PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

    ANNEXURE A     TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED

01/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 18/01/2010 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING GO(P) 317/2005/G.EDN. DATED 17/08/2005 MADE MENTION OF IN THE REJECTION ORDER.

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING GO(P) NO.10/2010/G.EDN. DATED 12/01/2010.

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF STAFF STATEMENT OF RAMAGURU UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL IN THE YEAR 2009.

ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/10/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 06/01/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/02/2020 IN WPC NO.4645/2020.