Juli R.L vs Director Of General Educations
2021 Latest Caselaw 21108 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 21108 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 October, 2021

Kerala High Court

Juli R.L vs Director Of General Educations on 20 October, 2021

WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021                1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          JULI R.L.,
          AGED 45 YEARS,
          W/O. FRANCIS, F.R. VILLA, KAMPIPPALAM, THALAPUZHA,
          WAYANAD-670 644.

          BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

    2     ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
          8/282, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, MANANCHIRA,
          KOZHIKODE-673 032.

    3     THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF ROMAN CATHOLIC,
          DIOCESE OF CALICUT, BISHOP HOUSE, MALAPARAMABA,
          KOZHIKODE-673 009, REP. BY ITS CORPORATE MANAGER,
          FR. THOMAS PANAKKAL.

    4     VINEETHA SEBASTIAN,
          AGE NOT KNOWN , TEACHER, ST. XAVIER'S U P SCHOOL,
          PERUVEYIL, KOZHIKODE-673 008.




          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 620 OF 2021                        2

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is a B.Ed. Graduate in Hindi. In the year

2014, the 3rd respondent Corporate Educational Agency invited applications

towards future vacancies in the aided schools under its management. The

petitioner also applied and participated in the written exams and she secured the

second rank. In the year 2019, she realised that a vacancy had arisen in the

school under the management and appointment was given to the 4th respondent

who had not even attended the exam. In the said circumstances, she submitted a

representation and when no action was taken, approached this Court. Pursuant to

directions issued, the representation was considered and the same was rejected

by Ext.P6 order. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Sri. Jinish Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submitted that pending consideration of the writ petition, the petitioner had

preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 1st respondent. It is submitted that for the

time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st

respondent to consider the appeal and pass orders within a time frame.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that if the request of the

petitioner is only to consider Ext.P7 appeal on its merits, necessary directions can

be issued.

4. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for, notice to the

respondents 3 and 4 are 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 in 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.P7 appeal, 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 as well as respondents 3 and 4.

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

event, within a period of two 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.