Jentobe Baby vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23014 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 23014 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2021

Kerala High Court

Jentobe Baby vs The State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2021

WP(C) NO. 26244 OF 2021            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA,
                                 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 26244 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            JENTOBE BABY
            AGED 26 YEARS
            SON OF BABY, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
            ST.SEBASTIAN LP SCHOOL, GOTHURUTH, N.PARAVUR,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683516.

            BY ADVS.
            V.A.MUHAMMED
            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 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
            NORTH PARAVUR-683513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

    4       THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
            ST.SEBASTIAN L P SCHOOL, GOTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683516.

    5       THE HEADMASTER
            ST.SEBASTIAN L P SCHOOL, GOTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683516.

            SMT NISHA BOSE SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26244 OF 2021                2



                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is a physically handicapped person and

his disability has been assessed at 50%. It is contended that the petitioner

is eminently qualified to be appointed as LPST. The Corporate Manager, St.

Sebastian LP School, who has been arrayed as the 4th respondent, granted

an appointment to the petitioner in the school. However, the AEO by

Exhibit P5 order refused to grant approval to the appointment of the

petitioner on frivolous grounds. The petitioner contends that this Court by

Exhibit P6 judgement had upheld the Government order and directions

were issued to the respective managements to conduct the selection and

appointment in strict implementation of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the

Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. The said judgement was upheld

by the Division Bench as well. Being aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order, the

petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P8 revision petition before the

Government which is stated to be pending.

2. When this matter came up for consideration, Sri. M.Sajjad, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the

pendency of Ext.8, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued

to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 revision

petition within a timeframe and with due notice, taking note of the law laid

down by this Court in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments.

3. I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

Pleader as well.

4. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass,

notice to the respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with.

5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this

writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of

at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 revision

petition as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions

of law, in the light of Exts.P6 and P7, after affording an

opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the

petitioner herein or his authorised representative as well as

respondents 4 and 5.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of two months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned

respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26244/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.08.2017 (NO.C2/25/8117).

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN EDUCATION DATED 25.02.2019 (DEDC:122554).

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KTET CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19.11.2019 (KTET-I 58592).

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.CEA 41/2021 DATED 01.09.2021 OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/19051/2021 DATED 23.09.2021 OF THE AEO, NORTH PARAVUR.

Exhibit P7         TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
                   W.A.NO.1242/2020 DATED 04.02.2021.

Exhibit P8         TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED

BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.10.2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.3/2019/G.EDN.

DATED 28.02.2019 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.J2/57/2019/G.EDN. DATED 08.03.2019 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: