Ancy Aliyar vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18342 Ker

WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2021       1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1     ANCY ALIYAR
          AGED 38 YEARS
          WIFE OF SIGIMON P.M, RESIDING AT PULIKKAYATH HOUSE,
          THURUTH, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101.

    2     MYMOONATH K.M,
          RESIDING AT PUTHUKKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O,
          ARAKKAPPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 551.

          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-11,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

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

    3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
          ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682 030.

    4     THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101.

    5     THE MANAGER,
          DARUSSALAM LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THRIKKAKARA,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 021.
 WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2021          2



     6       THE HEADMASTER,
             DARUSSALAM LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THRIKKAKARA,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 021.



             SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   07.09.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2021                    3



                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they were appointed as L.P.S.A. against

additional division vacancies in Darussalam L.P. School, Thrikkakara, an aided

school, under the management of the 5th respondent. However, their

appointment was rejected by the AEO in view of the ban imposed by the

Government prevailing at that time. The petitioners then approached the

Government seeking approval and the same was granted on the strength of

the judgment in W.P(C) No.24497/2019, whereby this Court had directed the

Government to consider the petitioners' request deeming that the Manager

had executed the bond. The petitioners submit that by virtue of Exts.P4 and

P5 Government orders, they are eligible for protection and deployment under

the "Teachers Package". It is in the above background the petitioners are

before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) declare that the Petitioners are entitled to get protection

and deployment.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or

direction directing the Respondents to deploy the Petitioners by

granting protection.

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

direction directing the 3rd Respondent to take a decision on

Exhibits P8 and P9 within a time limit with notice to the

Petitioners."

2. Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners would limit their request to an expeditious

consideration of Exts.P8 and P9 within a time frame with due notice to the

petitioners herein.

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 representations there will be a direction to the 3rd

respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P8 and P9, as per procedure and in adherence to the

provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard,

either physically or virtually, to the petitioners herein or their

authorised representatives and the party respondents.

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 petitioners 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 NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18214/2021

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.6.2006

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2007

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT0 NO 1829/2020/G.EDN DATED 4.6.2020

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D/9496/2021 DATED 25.6.2021 OF THE AEO, ALUVA

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D/10876/2021 DATED 25.6.2021 OF THE AEO, ALUVA

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO 199/2011/G.EDN DATED 1.10.2011

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO 29/16/G.EDN DATED 29.1.2016

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE DDE, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.8.2021

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DDE, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.8.2021

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL