Vrinda C.S vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23700 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 23700 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2021

Kerala High Court

Vrinda C.S vs The State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2021

WP(C) NO. 27122 OF 2021           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 27122 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          VRINDA C.S,
          AGED 51 YEARS,
          WIFE OF DR. SUDHEER, PRINCIPAL (UNAPPROVED),
          JPE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
          KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR 680 027.

          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2     THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
          EDUCATION,
          SRVGHSS SCHOOL COMPOUND,
          ERNAKULAM-682 016.

    3     THE MANAGER,
          JPE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
          KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR 680 027.



          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27122 OF 2021                     2




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is working as Headmistress in the JPE Higher

Secondary School, Koorkancherry, an aided School managed by the 3rd

respondent, from 1.7.2008 onwards. It is contended that the petitioner is a

Postgraduate and she has cleared all Departmental Tests. She is eminently

qualified for the post of the Principal, contends the petitioner. The petitioner

asserts that as there is no qualified HSST with 12 years of service, in view of Note

(iii) to Rule (4) of Chapter XXXII of the KER, the petitioner is to be promoted as

the Principal of the school. The petitioner contends that she had staked her claim

and had lodged Exts.P1 to P5. The petitioner asserts that the Manager has

preferred Ext.P8 review petition before the Government seeking to convene the

selection committee comprising of Government nominees. The petitioner, on the

other hand, has approached the Government and has preferred Ext.P9 revision

petition, which is also stated to be pending. It is in the afore circumstances that

the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to

grant approval to the petitioner as Principal and for issuance of directions to the

1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9.

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

counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that for the time being the

petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st respondent to

consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits-P8 review petition and Exhibit-

P9 revision petition within a time frame with due notice.

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

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

3rd respondent 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 Exhibits-P8 review petition

preferred by the 3rd respondent and Exhibit-P9 revision petition

preferred by the petitioner, as per procedure and in accordance

with the law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised

representative and the 3rd respondent.

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

event, within a period of three 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.