Sakkeena Beevi R vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18145 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17862 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. 17862 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          SAKKEENA BEEVI R,
          AGED 38 YEARS,
          WIFE OF MOHAMMED SHAFI, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER
          (ARABIC), C P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU,
          CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 534.

          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD



RESPONDENT/S:

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

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

    3      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
           KOLLAM AT THEVALLY-691 009.

    4      THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 305.

    5      THE MANAGER,
           C P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKADU,
           CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 534.




           SMT NISH BOSE SR GP
 WP(C) NO. 17862 OF 2021          2

      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. 17862 OF 2021                      3

                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was appointed as HST in Arabic in the

C.P. Higher Secondary School, Kuttikadu, an aided school, under the

management of the 5th respondent. She contends that her appointment was

approved only from 01.06.2011 onwards. She is aggrieved by the refusal of

the respondents in approving her appointment for the period from

01.06.2009 onwards. She states that narrating her grievances, she has

preferred Ext.P7 representation, which is pending before the Government. It

is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking

the following reliefs:

"i) call for the records relating to Exhibit-P3 and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval to her appointment from 01.06.2009 onwards and consequential benefits.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.2009 as HST and disburse the attendant benefits forthwith.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit-P7 with notice to the petitioner and within a time bound manner."

2. I have heard Sri. M Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Sri. Sajjad submitted that it is settled by now that in case

appointments are made against anticipated additional posts, it has to be

deemed that the managers had executed that bond. The learned counsel

submits that the petitioner is entitled to get approval from 01.06.2009

onwards and also the attendant benefits. According to the learned counsel,

the petitioner would be satisfied if the 1st respondent is directed to take up

Ext.P7 representation and take a decision taking note of the law laid down in

Exts.P4 and P5 judgments.

4. 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, the 1st respondent

is directed to take up, consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P7 representation filed by the petitioner with

notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent,

taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Exts.P4

and P5 judgments. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in

any event, within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

b) While considering the representation, the Secretary to

Government shall bear in mind that the Managers would

be deemed to have executed the bond and also that they

would be obliged to make appointments from the list of

protected teachers equal to the number of appointments

approved during the ban period.

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.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17862/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2009 AND APPROVAL RECORDED THEREON.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE DDE, KOLLAM.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDT.NO.N.DIS.B6/17919/16 DATED 5.10.2016 OF THE DDE, KOLLAM.

Exhibit P4         TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
                   W.A.NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.7.2017.

Exhibit P5         TRIUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
                   W.A.NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.6.2019.

Exhibit P6         TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER

NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25.10.2011.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.7.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL