Sarala.K.K vs Director General Of Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 18132 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17864 OF 2021         1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 17864 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          SARALA.K.K,
          AGED 70 YEARS,
          MALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMUGHAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631.

          BY ADVS.
          AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
          K.S.ROCKEY
          TONY AUGUSTINE
          GEORGE RENOY



RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

    3     ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 301.

    4     MANAGER, MIAM LP SCHOOL,
          PERUMUGAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631.




          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17864 OF 2021                     2

                                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she had worked as Headmistress of the MIAM

LP School with effect from 26.7.1983 onwards. Her grievance is that her

service was approved by the respondents only with effect from 2.4.1990. The

petitioner asserts that she is entitled to get approval and all consequential

benefits as Headmistress from 26.7.1983 based on various orders issued by the

respondents. Narrating her grievance, she is stated to have preferred Ext.P3

representation before the 1st respondent. It is in the above background the

petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction

to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3

within a time limit and after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction

to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the

petitioner as Headmistress during the period from 26.07.1983 to

02.04.1990 and pay all consequential benefits."

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader.

3. 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 by issuing the

following directions:

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

in the representation there will be a direction to the 1st respondent

to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, after

affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative

as well as the Manager.

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) 17864/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.10.2020 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.7.2021 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL