Kerala High Court
Ajilal S vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2021
WP(C) NO. 29115 OF 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 29115 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
AJILAL S,
AGED 39 YEARS,
ARABIC TEACHER, J.M.L.P SCHOOL, PARAMESWARAM,
VANJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION , GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.
5 THE MANAGER,
J.M.L.P SCHOOL, PARAMESWARAM, VENJARAMOODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 607.
6 THE HEADMASTER,
J.M.L.P SCHOOL, PARAMESWARAM, VENJARAMOODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 607.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
SMT.P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
SMT.REENA THOMAS
SMT.NIGI GEORGE
WP(C) NO. 29115 OF 2019 2
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29115 OF 2019 3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the denial of Full-time benefit in the post of Arabic
teacher, in spite of satisfaction of the requisite condition, the petitioner has
approached this Court seeking directions.
2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as Arabic Teacher
(Part Time) in J M Lower Primary School, an aided school managed by the 5th
respondent from 1.6.2010 onwards in the retirement vacancy of Smt. Salihathu
Beevi. The said appointment was approved by the 4th respondent by Ext.P1
order. The petitioner contends that the school where she was working
maintained the effective strength insofar as Arabic is concerned for the
academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. It is contended that as there was
no staff fixation order for the year 2012-2013 to 2015-2016, the staff fixation
order for the academic year 2010-2011 was made applicable as per Circulars
issued by the Government. The petitioner contends that he was paid the entire
salary during the period from 2010-2016 and he also had completed 5 years
continuous approved service in the school as on 1.6.2015. Seeking full-time
benefit of Arabic, the petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P2
representation. However, the request was turned down by Ext.P3 order on the
ground that there is no sanctioned posts for the academic years 2012-2013
and 2013-2014. The petitioner states that though he moved the 3rd
respondent and later the 2nd respondent, the request made by the petitioner
was not granted. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have
approached the 1st respondent and submitted Ext.P6 representation. The
same stands rejected by Ext.P7 order. The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 is a
non-speaking order passed in gross violation to the principles of natural justice.
Though the order was passed based on a representation filed by the petitioner,
he was not put on notice. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is
before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exts.P3&P7 as
it is illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order
or direction directing the 4th respondent to grant full time benefit of Arabic
from 1/6/2015 to the petitioner as he has completed 5 years continuous
approved service on 31/5/2015 in the parent school
iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get full time benefit
in the post held by her (Arabic Part Time) with effect from 01/06/2015
onwards as he had satisfied the condition required in the Government
orders concerned.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order
or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass order on
Ext.P12 revision petition in the light of Exts.P8 to P11 orders/directions as
expeditiously as possible.
3. Sri.P.P.Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that Ext.P7 order has been passed without considering
any of the relevant aspects. According to the learned counsel, the 1st
respondent has overlooked Ext.P8 and P9 Government orders and also the law
laid down by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment. It is further contended that
persons similarly situated as the petitioner were granted full-time benefits and
reliance is placed on Ext.P13 judgment. Finally, it is submitted that Ext.P7 has
to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned
counsel would further contend that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12
revision petition before the 1st respondent and it is submitted that it would
only be just and proper to direct the 1st respondent to consider the same on
its merits in the light of Exts.P8 to P11 and Ext.P13 judgment.
4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who submitted that
only if the petitioner is having 5 years of continuous aggregate service under
the same educational agency that he would be entitled to the full time
benefits.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. Insofar as Ext.P7 is
concerned, I find that the 1st respondent has not adverted to the various
Government orders as well as the law laid down by this Court in the judgments
referred to by the petitioner. The petitioner was also not heard before passing
the said order. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. I find
that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 revision petition detailing all the
relevant facts. In that view of the matter, the 1st respondent before whom
Ext.P12 is pending can be directed to dispose of the same on its merits, taking
note of Exts.P8 to P11 and P13 judgments.
6. 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) Ext.P7 will stand set aside.
b) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider
and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12, in the light of Ext.P8 to
P11 and P13 judgment of this Court, as per procedure and in
adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity
of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner
herein or his authorised representative as well as the party
respondents.
c) 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.
d) 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) 29115/2019
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED
26.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B(4)
23881/15/L.DIS DATED 24.1.2016 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25.5.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO RA (1)/
45345/17/DPI DATED 28.7.2017 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.10.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO S/303/2018/G.EDN
DATED 20.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO 189/82/G.EDN
DATED 14.12.1982 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO 11/87/G.EDM
DATED 7/1/1987 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2017
IN WPC NO 40280/2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO
1390/2018/G.EDN. DATED 9.4.2018 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
11.10.2019 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO 1.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/03/2021
IN W.P(C) 31802/2018.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
