Jisha K.A. vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7046 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7046 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Jisha K.A. vs The State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2021

               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.3644 OF 2021(E)

PETITIONER:

               JISHA K.A., AGED 41 YEARS
               WIFE OF MAJU MOHAN , HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
               (MALAYALAM), L.F. HIGH SCHOOL, NARAKKAL,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 505.

               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 695 001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD 682 030.

      4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
               ERNAKULAM 682 011.

      5        THE MANAGER, L.F HIGH SCHOOL, NARAKKAL,
               ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT 682 505.

               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 3644/21
                                        2


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she was appointed

as a High School Teacher (HST) in Malayalam,

in a leave vacancy in the 'L.F.High School',

Narakkal, from 07.07.2004 to 30.06.2005; but

that approval of the same was denied by the

competent Educational Officers solely saying

that it was of a duration of less than one

academic year. She asserts that this has been

so concluded by the Educational Authorities

based on a Government Order which is in

conflict with the Statutory Rules; and

therefore, she has moved the Government

through Ext.P12 Statutory Revision, under the

provisions of Rule 92 Chapter XIVA of the

Kerala Education Rules (KER for short). She

thus prays that the aforementioned Revision be

directed to be taken up and disposed of by the

Government, within a time frame to be fixed by

this Court.

WPC 3644/21

2. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by her

learned counsel - Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned

Government Pleader - Sri.Rajasekharan Nair,

submitted that since the petitioner has

already invoked her alternative statutory

remedy, this Court may not consider her

contentions on its merits and permit the

competent Secretary of the Government of

Kerala to consider Ext.P12 statutory Revision

as per law. She further prayed that this Court

may not make any affirmative declarations on

the entitlement of the petitioner to any

relief and leave it to the competent Authority

to take a final decision thereon, including on

the question of delay since, apparently, the

petitioner has approached the Government with

Ext.P12 more than 16 years after she had been

appointed.

3. When I consider the afore submissions, WPC 3644/21

it is without doubt that even though the

petitioner has made various allegations and

averments in this Writ Petition, the same

cannot be looked into by this Court on its

merits at this stage because, admittedly, she

has invoked her alternative statutory remedy

by preferring Ext.P12 Revision before the

Government of Kerala. I am, therefore, of the

firm view that the said Authority must be

directed to dispose of the same as per law.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and direct the competent

Secretary of the Government of Kerala to take

up and consider Ext.P12 Revision of the

petitioner after affording her, as also the 5th

respondent-Manager, an opportunity of being

heard - either physically or through video-

conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than three months WPC 3644/21

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

                              DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      RR                            JUDGE
 WPC 3644/21



                           APPENDIX
      PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

      EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF

THE PETITIONER DATED 07.07.2014.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.

5161/04/G.EDN. DATED 02.12.2004 OF THE GOVT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

B3/6378/2004/K.DIS. DATED 07.10.2004 OF THE DEO.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

B2/27806/04/K.DIS. DATED 27.11.2004 OF THE DDE.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

ET4/5141/2005/DPI/D.DIS. DATED 20.04.2005 OF THE DIRECTOR.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO.

169/04/G.EDN. DATED 15.06.2004 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.