Licy Mathew vs The State Of Kerala Rep.By Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6997 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1425 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               LICY MATHEW, HSST, (ZOOLOGY),
               ST. THOMAS H.S.S., THOMAPURAM,
               CHITTARIKKAL, KASARGODE DISTRICT

               BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL


RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

      3        THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY
               EDUCATION, KANNUR, PIN 670 002

      4        THE CORPORATE MANAGER, THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL
               AGENCY, ARCH DIOCESE OF THALASSERY, SANDESH BHAVAN,
               THALASSERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 101


               SMT-NISHA BOSE-SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 1425/21
                                          2



                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she is working as

a Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) in

Zoology at 'St.Thomas H.S.S', Kasaragode,

managed by the 4th respondent-Manager and that

this is evident from Ext.P1 order of

appointment. She asserts that Ext.P1 was

issued by the Manager after two senior

Teachers had relinquished their claims for

Appointment by Transfer, but that the

Educational Authorities are refusing to

approve the same, saying that the Government

is yet to take a general decision with respect

to such relinquishments in Aided Schools.

2. The petitioner says that, however, her

appointment through Ext.P1 has been virtually

rejected by the Regional Deputy Director of

Education, through Ext.P2, again saying that

there is no general order of the Government

with respect to relinquishments of Senior WPC 1425/21

Teachers and therefore, that the same cannot

be accepted.

3. The petitioner points out that one of

the Senior Teachers, who had relinquished her

claim, had approached this Court by filing

W.P(C)No.491/2020, which was disposed of by

this Court through Ext.P10 judgment, directing

the Government to consider her request and to

issue appropriate orders thereon. She says

that, thereafter, the Government appears to

have issued a general order on 23.02.2021,

with respect to relinquishments of this

nature; and thus prays that her case may be

directed to be considered by the competent

Educational Authority based on the said order

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

4. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by her

learned counsel Sri.George Mecheril, the

learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Nisha

Bose, affirmed that the Government has now WPC 1425/21

taken a general decision, through the order

dated 23.02.2021 - which has been produced on

record along with a memo dated 01.03.2021. She

submitted that, therefore, the competent

Educational Authority can now consider the

petitioner's request for approval based on

Ext.P1, on the basis of the directions of the

Government in the order dated 23.02.2021.

5. When I consider the afore submissions,

it is without doubt that even though the

petitioner's request has been turned down

through Ext.P2, the situation has now been

completely altered, by the Government issuing

the order dated 23.02.2021. I am, therefore,

of the firm view that the petitioner's request

for approval of appointment on the strength of

Ext.P1, should be considered by the 3rd

respondent-Regional Deputy Director of

Education without any further delay.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered

and the 3rd respondent is directed to take up WPC 1425/21

and reconsider the petitioner's proposal for

approval based on Ext.P1 appointment order,

edificed on her assertion that two senior

teachers of the School have already offered

relinquishment to the post; which exercise

shall be completed, adverting to the

Government Order bearing number G.O.

(P)No.118/2021/G.Edn dated 23.02.2021, as

expeditiously as is possible but not later

than one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, since the Government has

issued a general order as afore noticed, the

earlier order of the 3rd respondent, namely

Ext.P2 would now have no legs to stand on and

is, therefore, quashed, so as to enable the

afore exercise to be completed effectively.

Sd/-

                                            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       RR                                            JUDGE
 WPC 1425/21




                            APPENDIX
       PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

       EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED

28/5/2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A9/5971/2016/K.DIS DATED 5/12/2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27/7/2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.5.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.9630/2018/FIN. DATED 22.11.2018

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO05/T2/2019/G.EDN DATED 10.4.2020

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.31190/2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1468/2020/G.EDN. DATED 8/4/2020

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/1/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.491/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE VIDE NO.41/T2/2020/G.EDN. DATED 1/2/2020 ISSUED TO SHYNI P.M. AND THE CORPORATE MANAGER.