M.L. Sailendrika Kumari vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8817 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)


PETITIONER:

               M.L. SAILENDRIKA KUMARI
               WIFE OF A.S.PRABHATH, AGED 32 YEARS,HIGH SCHOOL
               ASSISTANT (ENGLISH),V.P.M.HIGH SCHOOL
               VELLARADA,NEYYATTINKARA-695508,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               DISTRICT

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
               SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
               EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
               JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

      4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

      5        THE MANAGER
               V.P.M.HIGH SCHOOL VELLARADA,NEYYATTINKARA-
               695508,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

               SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)

                                     2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

The petitioner says that she was appointed as an High

School Teacher in English in the "V.P.M.High School",

Vellarada, Thiruvananthapuram - managed by the fifth

respondent Manager - on 27.07.2012, but that approval to

this appointment was declined by the District Educational

Officer (DEO) citing that there was no vacancy available. She

says that the Manager of the school, thereupon, filed an

appeal before the Deputy Director of Education (DDE), but

that the said Authority rejected the same relying on an

incorrect report placed before him by the DEO.

2. The petitioner says that, thereafter, the Manager

moved the Director of Public Instruction (now redesignated as

the Director of General Education), who also rejected the

approval sought for, constraining her to file a statutory

Revision before the Government under the provisions of Rule

92 of Chapter XIVA of the KER.

3. The petitioner says that the afore statutory Revision

was allowed by the Government and the matter remitted to

the DEO through Ext.P5 order, directing him " to re-examine WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)

and consider the approval to the appointment of

Smt.Sheenakumari based on G.O.(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated

29.01.2016 and the approval of appointment of

Smt.Sailendrika Kumari as HSA (English) with effect from

27.07.2012" (sic). The petitioner says that therefore, it was

clear that the DEO was directed by the Government to first

consider the approval of appointment of a senior teacher by

name Smt.Sheenakumari, based on the Government Order

aforementioned and then to consider her approval with effect

from 27.07.2012.

4. The petitioner further says that subsequently, she was

appointed against another retirement vacancy with effect from

01.07.2015, through Ext.P8 order, by the Manager and that a

proposal for approval of the same was also forwarded to the

DEO. She alleges that, however, the DEO, without considering

the directions in Ext.P5 order of the Government, approved

Ext.P8 with effect from 01.07.2015, however, without in any

manner considering her request for approval with effect from

27.07.2012. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the DEO be

directed to consider and pass orders on the proposal for

approval with effect from 27.07.2012, based on Ext.P5 WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)

Government order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.P.A.Jenzia

added to the afore submissions by saying that the sole reason

why her client's approval had been earlier declined by the

educational Authorities is because there was no post to

accommodate her. She submitted that this is totally wrong

because, going by Ext.P11 - which is the staff fixation order

for the year 2010-11 - there were sufficient student strength

and that, by the subsequent Government orders, this staff

fixation order was directed to be kept in force till the

academic year 2015-16. She, therefore, contended that her

client was entitled to be granted approval based on the

available staff fixation order.

6. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.P.M.Manoj, conceded that he has no information as to

whether any specific order has been issued by the DEO with

respect to the claim of the petitioner for approval with effect

from 27.07.2012 and that in Ext.P8, only her appointment

with effect from 01.07.2015 has been approved. He,

therefore, prayed that if this Court is so inclined, the DEO may

be allowed to pass appropriate orders based on Ext.P5 WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)

Government Order and prayed that no affirmative declarations

be made in favour of the petitioner, with respect to her claim

for approval with effect from 27.07.2012 and permit the said

Authority to take an apposite decision thereon, taking note of

all relevant aspects.

7. When I consider the afore submissions, it is

indubitable that in Ext.P8, the DEO has only granted approval

to the petitioner's appointment with effect from 01.07.2015.

The said order is completely silent as to her claim for approval

with effect from 27.07.2012 and this is pertinent because the

Government had directed the said Authority to issue

appropriate orders thereon through Ext.P5 order.

8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the DEO must

now complete the process as has been directed by the

Government in Ext.P5 without any further delay.

9. Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the

DEO to consider the proposal for approval of the petitioner

with effect from 27.07.2012 till 01.07.2015, as per the

directions issued to him in Ext.P5 order of the Government.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the DEO, after

affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)

the Manager of the School - either physically or through video

conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.3295 OF 2018(J)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.07.2012

EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/5336/12 DATED 09.10.2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B(6)/20500/2013/K.DIS. DATED 19.08.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET (4)/70373/ 2014/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 30-05-2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2903/2016/ G.EDN. DATED 05-09-2016 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ANNEXURE

EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.38638 OF 2015-D DATED 18.12.2015

EXHIBIT P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2015 AND APPROVAL THEREON

EXHIBIT P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2007(1) KLT 766 DATED 18.10.2006

EXHIBIT P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.31904/J2/12/ G.EDN. DATED 06.06.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/3562/10 DATED 06.09.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEO VIDE NO. B2/10194/10/D.DIS. DATED 11/02/2011.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING RETIREMENT OF ONE HSA (SS).