Hareesh M S vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18174 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17900 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. 17900 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          HAREESH M S,
          AGED 40 YEARS,
          SON OF MUHAMMED HASSAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
          KUTTIKKODE U P SCHOOL, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691
          536.

          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE 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 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 306.

    6     THE MANAGER,
          KUTTIKKODE UP SCHOOL, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691
          536.

          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. 17900 OF 2021                        2

                                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he was appointed as LPST in the Kuttikkode UP

School, Kadakkal, an aided school under the management of the 6th

respondent. According to the petitioner, the approval was rejected on the

ground that the Manager has not executed the bond. The appointment was

later approved with effect from 1.6.2011 onwards and since then, he has been

continuing in service. The petitioner states that for the reason of non-grant of

approval from 15.7.2010, though the appointment was made against available

sanctioned post, salary is denied to him for the period from 15.7.2010 till

31.5.2011. Stating his grievances, the petitioner is stated to have filed Ext.P7

representation before the 1st respondent. It is in the above backdrop that the

petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"i) call for the records relating to Exhibits-P2 and P3 and set aside the originals

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 15.07.2010 onwards and consequential benefits, for she was

appointed against a retirement vacancy.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction

commanding the respondents to approve the appointment of the

petitioner from 15.07.2010 as LPSA and disburse the attendant benefits

forthwith.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction

commanding the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit-P7 with

notice to the petitioner and in a time bound manner."

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

petitioner and the learned Government pleader. In view of the nature of the

order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondents is dispensed with.

3. Sri.M.Sajjad submitted that in view of Ext.P4 and P5 judgments,

the 1st respondent is bound to proceed as though the Manager has executed

the required bond while considering Ext.P7 representation filed by the

petitioner. The learned counsel requested that directions be issued to the 1st

respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 taking note of the principles laid down

in Exts.P4 and P5.

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) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, as per

procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law

after adverting to the principles laid down in Exts.P4 and P5.

An opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually,

shall be afforded to the petitioner or his authorised

representative, the Manager as well as affected parties, if

any.

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) 17900/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.7.2010 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO B/2350/11.D.DIS.

DATED 12.7.2011 OF THE AEO, CHADAYAMANGALAM

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B1/1484/11/K.DIS.

DATED 22.10.2011 OF THE DEO, PUNALUR.

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

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 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.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR 2010-2011 DATED 25.1.2011.

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL