Jessy Varghese vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10096 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7770 OF 2021(U)


PETITIONER:

               JESSY VARGHESE
               AGED 52 YEARS
               WIFE OF FR.JACOB CHERIAN,
               UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
               BALIKAMATOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               THIRUVALLA-689101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
               SRI.M.SAJJAD

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

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

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA-689101.

      4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               THIRUVALLA-689101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

      5        THE MANAGER,
               BALIKAMATOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               THIRUVALLA-689101, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

               SRI.T RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SR. GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7770 OF 2021

                                         2



                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-3 and set aside the original of the same to the extent it denied approval to the Petitioner from 01.06.2010 onwards by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

ii) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get approval to her appointment from 01.06.2010 onwards and consequential benefits, for she was appointed against a promotion vacancy and that she is a Rule 51-A claimant.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to approve the appointment of the Petitioner from 01.06.2010 as UPSA and disburse the attendant benefits forthwith.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P-7 with notice to the Petitioner and in a time bound manner."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the 5 th respondent's school on

regular basis in a promotion vacancy on 01.06.2010. But the WP(C).No.7770 OF 2021

appointment has been approved only with effect from 01.06.2011.

Against the declining of approval for the period from 01.06.2010 to

31.05.2011, the petitioner has moved Ext.P7 representation before the

Government and seeks a consideration of the same. It is submitted

that the same is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

4. Though the learned Government Pleader points out that there is

delay in filing the representation, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that it was due to the supervening circumstances

and the promise held out that a general decision would be taken on

the question of appointments before 01.06.2011 that the delay

occurred.

5. In any view of the matter, since the petitioner has approached

the Government, I am of the opinion that it is for the Government to

take an appropriate decision on the matter. There will, accordingly, be

a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders

on Ext.P7 representation preferred by the petitioner, with notice to

the petitioner as well as the 5 th respondent and after hearing them,

through any appropriate means, including by video conferencing, WP(C).No.7770 OF 2021

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. Since the appointment is made after the ban period,

the appointment shall be approved, if it is otherwise in order. In case

the appointment of the petitioner is found liable to be approved, the

monetary benefits shall also be released to the petitioner within a

period of three months thereafter.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C).No.7770 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.10.2002.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.7.2006.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2020.

EXHIBIT P4              TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
                        W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.7.2017.

EXHIBIT P5              TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
                        W.A.NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P6              TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER

NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL