Amrutham M.S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20472 Ker

WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          AMRUTHAM M.S.,
          AGED 48 YEARS,
          HST, MMET HS, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM 676 517.

          BY ADVS.
          AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
          K.S.ROCKEY
          TONY AUGUSTINE
          GEORGE RENOY



RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
          DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM 686 506.

    3     THE MANAGER,
          MMET HS, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM 676 517.




          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2021                     2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that while she was working as UPSA in the MMET

HS, Melmuri, an aided school under the management of the 3rd respondent,

she was promoted and appointed on 01.06.2009 as an HST in a Leave Without

Allowance Vacancy. She contends that she is entitled to the approval of her

service as HST from 01.06.2009 to 16.11.2009. Raising her contentions, the

petitioner is stated to have preferred Exhibit-P7 revision petition before the 1st

respondent. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court

seeking directions:

2. Sri.Augustine Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the only request is for a direction to the 1st

respondent to expeditiously consider and take a decision on Ext.P7.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. 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 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.P7, as per

procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of

law. An opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, shall be afforded to the petitioner or her

authorised representative, the Manager as well as

affected parties, if any.

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.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15958/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009 OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.11.2009.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.22443/A2/2013/G.EDN DATED 18.12.2013.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.27503/2014.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.3.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.37492/2016.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.7.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.7.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL