Sabah Banu K C vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21438 Ker

WP(C) NO. 20676 OF 2021        1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 20676 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SABAH BANU K C
          AGED 46 YEARS
          ARABIC TEACHER, M.K.H.M.M.O.V.H.S.SCHOOL, MOKKOM,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673602.

          BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM


RESPONDENTS:
     1    STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION
          OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

    3     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
          OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          KOZHIKODE,PIN-673004.

    4     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673573.

    5     CORPORATE MANAGER
          CORPORATE SCHOOL UNDER THE MOKKAM MUSLIM ORPHANAGE
          COMMITTEE, MOKKAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673602.

    6     HEADMASTER
          M.K.H.M.M.O.V.H.S SCHOOL, MOKKOM, KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT-673602.

          SMT NISHA BOSE SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20676 OF 2021             2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was initially appointed as a leave

substitute from 02.06.2008 to 31.03.2009 in M K H M M O V HSS (Girls),

Mokkom as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner states that the approval of the

appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the educational authorities on

the ground that there is no established vacancy. The petitioner contends that

later she was appointed in a regular vacancy that arose due to the promotion

of a certain Smt. Saleena Edapoliyil, from 17.02.2009 onwards by Ext.P4 order.

The petitioner contends that the proposal for approval of her appointment

from 17.02.2009 onwards, as forwarded by 5th respondent, was rejected by

the 4th respondent by Ext.P7 order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner

approached the 1st respondent and filed a revision petition. Pursuant to orders

passed by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, the 1st respondent granted

approval to the petitioner for the period from 2.6.2008 to 16.2.2009, but

without adverting to the period during which the petitioner was granted

regular appointment, i.e., from 17.2.2009 to 3.5.2011. The petitioner contends

that the order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be said to be proper and

legal and is against the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10. The

petitioner states that it would be pertinent to note that by Exts.P5 and P6

orders, the 1st respondent granted approval to Smt. Saleena Edapoliyil with

effect from 17.02.2009 onwards and these aspects ought to have been taken

note of by the Government while passing orders.

2. I have heard Sri. P.P. Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. I have gone through the representation filed by the petitioner

which is produced as Ext.P9 and also the directions issued by this Court in

Ext.P10. Going through Ext.P11, it is apparent that the impact of Exts.P5 and

P6 was not considered by the 1st respondent. The question of approval for the

period from 17.02.2009 to 31.05.2011 was also not considered. In that view of

the matter, I am of the view that in so far as the 1st respondent omitted to

consider the approval for the subsequent period that is from 17.02.2009, the

same is liable to be reconsidered.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions

made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider Ext.P9 afresh insofar as it concerns the denial of approval to the

petitioner for her service as HSA (Arabic) in the newly created post from

17.2.2009 to 31.5.2011. While reconsidering the request, the 1st respondent

shall consider the implications of Exts.P4 and P5 as well. With these directions,

this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20676/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 02.08.2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/3633/K.DIS DATED 31.03.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
                    NO.EM(3)/7916/10/DPI/K.DIS DATED
                    31.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4          TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
                    17.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5          TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.5449/2019/G.EDN
                    DATED 11/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
                    RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6          TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/2830/2019 (2)
                    DATED 23/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
                    RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/4466/2019
                    K.DIS DATED 08/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
                    RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8          TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14/09/2020
                    SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9          TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
                    27/10/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P10         TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2020
                    IN WPC NO.24013/2020 ISSUED BY THIS
                    HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P11         TRUE COPY OF THE G O (RT)

NO.3857/2021/G.EDN DATED 01.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL