Kerala High Court
Cecilykutty Francis vs The State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2021
WP(C) NO. 21278 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. 21278 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
CECILYKUTTY FRANCIS,
AGED 58 YEARS,
WIFE OF ANTONY DOMINIC, HIGHER SCHOOL
TEACHER(PHYSICAL SCIENCE) (RETIRED)
ST. ANTONY'S GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT 688 011,
(RESIDING AT VANIAPURACKAL HOUSE, PLAKKUDY LANE,
KOMANA, P.O AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688
561) (M. 96455 72010)
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEAR IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA 688 011.
WP(C) NO. 21278 OF 2021 2
5 THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, ARCH DIOCESE OF
CHANGANACHERRY, P.O CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT 686 101.
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. 21278 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she is a retired HST (Physical Science) having
approved teaching service as UPSA before her continuous service as HST
(Physical Science) from 04.06.2012 onwards in various aided Schools under
the 5th respondent Corporate Management. The petitioner contends that she
has been denied her second Higher Grade in UPSA cadre on completion of 15
years of service including in the lower post. The petitioner relies on Ext.P4
Government Order dated 1.9.1998 and it is contended that the Government
has ordered that in the case of those aided school staff, who are promoted for
short spells but reverted to lower post for want of vacancy and are continuing
in the lower post, their service in the Higher Post will also be reckoned for
computing the prescribed qualifying service in the lower post. The petitioner
states that she has been denied the benefit of Ext.P4 order since she was not
reverted to the lower post of UPSA before her retirement. Taking note of all
these aspects, the 4th respondent has taken up the matter with the
Government but by Ext.P5 letter, the request was rejected holding that she is
not entitled to get her first Higher Grade in the post of UPSA. The petitioner
states that there are errors on the face of the record as the petitioner had
been granted her first Higher Grade on completion of 8 years service in UPSA
cadre on 21.5.2011 reckoning her broken periods of service as per Ext.P2
order. The petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P6 review petition to
correct the error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner in the said
circumstances has approached this Court for setting aside Ext.P5 and also for
a further direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass expeditious
orders on Ext.P6.
2. Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that in view of the pendency of the revision petition, the
limited request of the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the 1st
respondent to consider Ext.P6 review petition in an expeditious manner with
due notice.
3. I have heard Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government
Pleader.
4. In view of the nature of order that I propose to pass, notice to
the party 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 Ext.P6 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 her authorised representative and the 5th 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.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21278/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 01-06-2005.
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 08-10-2001.
Exhibit P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 25-09-2002.
Exhibit P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 14-07-2003.
Exhibit P1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 08-10-2003.
Exhibit P1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 20-02-2004.
Exhibit P1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 05-06-2004.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF
PAY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 4-6-2012.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO 348/1998/G.EDN
DATED 01-09-1998 OF THE GOVT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
A3/44/2019/G.EDN DATED 01-02-2020 OF THE
GOVT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE GOVT. DATED 22-01-2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
