Sakkir Hussain M.S vs The Deputy Director Of Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 14778 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

          THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943

                             WP(C) NO. 15636 OF 2014

PETITIONER:

               SAKKIR HUSSAIN M.S.
               LOWER GRADE ARABIC TEACHER, S.N.V.T.T.I.,KAKKAZHOM, ALAPPUZHA,
               PIN - 685 005.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
               SRI.S.A.ANAND
               SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI
               SRI.K.A.BALAN
               SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
               SMT.N.SANTHA



RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001.

     2         THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001.

     3         THE MANAGER
               S.N.V.T.T.I., KAKKAZHOM, ALAPPUZHA,PIN - 685 005.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15636 OF 2014

                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to have been appointed as a

Lower Grade Arabic Teacher in 'SNV Teacher's Training Instittue',

Alappuzha, with effect from 01.06.2011 as per Ext.P1 order, has

approached this Court seeking that 2 nd respondent be directed to

implement Exts.P2 and P3 orders issued by the 1 st respondent -

Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, within a time frame to be

fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner says that, through Exts.P2 and P3, 1 st

respondent has directed the 2 nd respondent - District Educational

Officer (DEO), to approve his appointment as Lower Grade Arabic

Teacher with effect from 01.06.2011, as per Ext.P1; and to disburse

him the salary and its arrears.

3. The petitioner submits that the controversy in this case

essentially arose as to who the Manager of the School was, but that

it is no longer relevant because the suits filed by the rival parties

have all ended in dismissal; and that, in any event of the matter, at

the time when he was appointed, the incumbent Manager had the

competence and authority to make appointments and that same is WP(C) NO. 15636 OF 2014

protected by the well accepted de facto doctrine.

4. I have heard Sri.Peter Jose Christo, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

5. I notice from the files of this case that, on 02.09.2014, the

following order had been issued by another learned Judge of this

Court:

"The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of Ext.P2 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, followed by Ext.P3 dated 08.03.2013 giving clarification with regard to the doubt expressed, the 2nd respondent has not passed any final order so far.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

After hearing both the sides, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3, at the earliest at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

6. It is today submitted by Sri.Peter Jose Christo that the

afore order led the 2nd respondent to issue proceedings

No.B3/5706/2014/K.Dis dated 27.10.2014, approving his client's WP(C) NO. 15636 OF 2014

appointment with effect from 01.06.2011; however, subject to the

result of this writ petition.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj,

submitted that petitioner's approval appears to have been delayed

because there was a dispute as to who the Manager of the School

was. He, however, conceded, to a pointed question, that all civil

disputes with respect to this have now ended in dismissal, but still

maintained that there is a larger question as to whether the person

who appointed the petitioner was, in fact, authorized to be the

Manager at the relevant time.

8. The submissions of the learned Senior Government

Pleader makes it evident that petitioner is otherwise eligible to be

granted approval, but that the only hurdle which stands in his way is

as to who should have been the Manager at the time when he was

appointed in the year 2011.

9. However, the fact remains that the person who appointed

the petitioner through Ext.P1 continued in office till 2014 or so and

obviously, therefore, as correctly asserted by Sri.Peter Jose Christo,

the de facto doctrine must apply in its full force in this case.

10. That apart, since the 2 nd respondent has already issued an WP(C) NO. 15636 OF 2014

order as early as in the year 2014, albeit in obedience to the

directions of this Court dated 02.09.2014, approving the

appointment of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2011, I do not

think that it will be justified for this Court to disturb that status at

this point of time.

In the afore circumstances, without answering the rival

contentions of the parties - finding it to be completely unnecessary

at this point of time - I dispose of this writ petition confirming the

interim order of this Court dated 02.09.2014 and declaring that

approval of the petitioner, granted through the order of the 2 nd

respondent dated 27.10.2014, will be on a permanent basis.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 15636 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15636/2014

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2011, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/8835/12/L.DIS DATED 12.10.2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2.20127/2012 DATED 8.3.2013 OF THE IST RESPONDENT

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2014 IN WPC NO.10960 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.