Hajarumma.P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20889 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20889 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2021

Kerala High Court

Hajarumma.P vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2021

WP(C) NO. 21170 OF 2021       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. 21170 OF 2021




PETITIONER/S:

          RAFEEK E.,
          AGED 36 YEARS,
          S/O. MOIDU E., HST (URDU), RAC HSS, KATAMERI,
          KATAMERI P. O., VILLIAPPALLY VIA,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 542.

          BY ADVS.
          T.T.MUHAMOOD
          V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
          A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
          T.R.VISHNU



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

    2     THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          OFFICE OF THE DDE, KOZHIKKODE - 673001.

    4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OFFICE OF THE DEO, VATAKARA, KOZHIKKODE - 673101.

    5     THE MANAGER,
          RAC HSS, KATAMERI, KATAMERI P. O., VILLIAPPALLY VIA,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 542.
 WP(C) NO. 21170 OF 2021          2

             SMT NISHA BOSE, 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. 21170 OF 2021             3



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is working as HST (Urdu) in RAC HSS, Katameri. He was

appointed as HST (Urdu) (part-time) on 01.06.2010 against a retirement

vacancy. However, the approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected

by the DEO, on the ground that the approval of senior hands who were

appointed against additional division vacancies during the academic year 2006-

07, were not approved.

2. The appeal preferred by the manager against Ext.P1 order was

disposed of by the 3rd respondent as per order No.K.Dis.B4/13796/2011 dated

05.01.2012 directing the DEO to reconsider the proposal for approval from

01.06.2011, the date from which the appointment of senior hands stands

approved. Pursuant to the same the petitioner's appointment as HSA (Urdu)

part-time was approved w.e.f. 01.06.2011 and he was granted full time

benefits from 01.06.2016 onwards.

3. Subsequently Government ordered to approve the appointment of

senior hands from the date of appointment. Now the approval of appointment

of senior hands namely; Sri.Ebrayi HST (English), Sri.Shreef HST (Arabic) and

Sri.Adulsalam HST (Hindi) is ordered to be approved from the date of

appointment. According to the petitioner, in view of the above, there cannot

be any legal impediment in approving the appointment of the petitioner from

01.06.2010 onwards. Seeking the aforesaid benefits the petitioner has

preferred Ext.P8 representation. The grievance is that no action has been

taken by the 1st respondent on Ext.P8 representation. In the afore

circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

4. Sri.T.T.Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the 1st respondent

is directed to consider Ext.P8 representation in an expeditious manner with

due notice.

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

Pleader, who submitted that there is no impediment in considering the said

request.

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 at

the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

made in Ext.P8 representation, there will be a direction to the 1st

respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P8, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or their authorised

representative.

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) 21170/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS/B1/3851/2010 DATED 28.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.