Tinu Mathew vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21110 Ker

WP(C) NO. 22282 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. 22282 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          TINU MATHEW,
          AGED 37 YEARS,
          D/O. MATHEWS, UPST, SHOHS,
          MOOKKANNOOR, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 577.

          BY ADVS.
          SHERRY J. THOMAS
          JOEMON ANTONY



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
          DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

    2     SECRETARY ,
          DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

    3     THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.

    4     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030.

    5     THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
          ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 101.

    6     THE MANAGER,
          SHOHS, MOOKKANNOOR, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 577.
 WP(C) NO. 22282 OF 2021            2



          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. 22282 OF 2021                       3




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPST in the SHO HS,

Mookkannoor, an aided school under the management of the 6th respondent

with effect from 15.7.2021 onwards. She has approached this Court being

aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to approve her

appointment on the ground that the petitioner did not study Malayalam

language either under Part I or Part II or as a medium of instruction through the

regular course of studies. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have

preferred Ext.P4 appeal. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is

before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and for a further direction to the 4th

respondent to consider the appeal in an expeditious manner.

2. Sri. Sherry J Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submitted that as long as the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the

Rules framed thereunder do not insist that only a teacher who has studied

Malayalam is qualified to the appointment to the post, the respondents are not

justified in imposing any such restrictions. It is submitted that it is by now trite

that Government Orders prescribing qualifications cannot supplant the

qualifications prescribed in the Rules and in the event of a conflict, it is the rule

that should prevail. Reliance is also placed on the law laid down by this Court in

identical matters as is evident from judgment produced as Exts.P5 and P6.

According to the learned counsel, since Ext.P4 is pending consideration, the

limited request is for an expeditious consideration of the same.

3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the

matter was taken in appeal before the Division Bench and the same is pending

as W.A.No.162/2020.

4. In view of the nature of order that I propose to pass, notice to the 6th

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 in the admission stage

itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to take up, consider

and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, taking note of the law laid

down in Exts.P5 and P6, after affording an opportunity of being

heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her

authorised representative as well as the 6th 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

sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22282/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT (DEO, ALUVA) DATED 25.07.2021.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT MANAGER DATED 02.08.2021.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/24548/2021 DATED 25.08.2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALUVA.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM DATED 08.09.2021.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.29317/2016 DATED 07.09.2016.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 15753/2017 DATED 10.07.2018.

Exhibit P7          THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
                    04.12.2018.



RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS:   NIL