Vinaya Vijayan P vs Mrs. Sajira Beegam
2021 Latest Caselaw 15539 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 867 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13435/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                 ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             VINAYA VIJAYAN P.
             AGED 38 YEARS
             D/O.V.M.,VIJAYA KUMAR, FORMER H.S.A. (MATHS),
             ANANAGANNADI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, OTTAPALAM
             PALAKKAD 679 501. (RESIDING AT VINAYAM, THOTTAKKARA
             P.O. OTTAPALAM 679 030.

             BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN



RESPONDENT/4TH RESPONDENT:

             MRS. SAJIRA BEEGAM
             (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
             P.A. TO DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (FULL CHARGE)
             OTTAPALAM SUB EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
             679 033.

             BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER




             SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP




     THIS    CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 867 OF 2021
                                    2

                                JUDGMENT

This Contempt of Court case has been filed by the writ

petitioner with the specific allegation that the directions in the

judgment dated 31.03.2021 in WP(C) No.13435/2019 have been

egregiously flouted,while issuing Annexure B order.

2. Sri.U.Balagangadharan - learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, submitted that even though this Court had directed

the respondent to consider his client's claim for approval of her

appointment as High School Teacher with effect from 15.07.2016,

adverting to the undertaking executed by the Manager of the

School, when Annexure B order was issued, her claim has been

rejected on various other grounds, which were never brought to

the notice of this Court. Sri.U.Balagangadharan, therefore, prayed

that the respondent be proceeded against for willfully violating the

orders of this Court.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.P.M.Manoj, on the contrary, submitted that Annexure B order CON.CASE(C) NO. 867 OF 2021

has been issued in implicit compliance with the directions of this

Court and after considering all relevant aspects. He explained that,

at the time when the judgment was delivered, all which this Court

had intended was whether the petitioner's claim should be

considered by the competent Authority as per law; and that

directions were thus issued to such effect, with an adjunct

direction to advert to the bond executed by the Manager. He then

pointed out that, as is evident from Annexure B, there were

various other aspects involved in this case and therefore, that the

Authority could have done nothing more, but to reject the

petitioner's claim for such reasons. He, therefore, prayed that this

Contempt Case be closed.

4. I have evaluated the afore contentions of the rival

parties and have also examined Annexure B order very carefully.

5. As correctly stated by Sri.P.M.Manoj, Annexure B

contains various reasons why the petitioner's claim for approval

has been denied. None of these aspects had been considered by

this Court or brought to the notice of this Court at the time when CON.CASE(C) NO. 867 OF 2021

the judgment was delivered, understandingly because, what was

directed solely that the competent Authority must consider the

petitioner's claim in its right perspective and as per law. Annexure

B is stated to have been issued after following such procedure;

and, pertinently, there is no allegation, even by the petitioner, that

the requirements under the KER have not been complied with by

the Authority, while doing so.

I am, therefore, of the firm view that petitioner must

challenge Annexure B, if she is so advised; and cannot seek that

same be evaluated on its merits by this Court, while acting under

the jurisdiction vested in the Contempts of Court Act.

In the afore circumstances, reserving liberty to the petitioner

to invoke every remedy that may be available to her against

Annexure B order, I close this Case.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/23/07/2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 867 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 867/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 31.03.2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC O. 13435 OF 2019.

ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE