Kerala High Court
M.Shijith vs Government Of Kerala on 14 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M.SHIJITH
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.N.ANANTHAN, CRAFT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT UP SCHOOL,
CHETTIYAMPARAMBU, KELEKAM, IRITTY, KANNUR-670 674
BY ADV D.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANNUR DISTRICT, KANNUR-670 002
4 MANAGER
MUP SCHOOL, VENGAD P.O., KANNUR-670 612
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17779 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he was appointed as a Craft Teacher in the
MUP School, Vengad, an aided school, under the management of the 4th
respondent as per Ext.P1 order. Though the appointment was made on a
vacancy, his appointment was not approved.
2. According to the petitioner, in the year 2012, the Government
came out with Ext.P2 order wherein the name of the petitioner was included in
the teachers package. He started working as a Cluster Coordinator on the
strength of the same. Later, by Ext.P3 order dated 04.10.2012, the
Government took a decision to sanction the pooling of specialist teachers
working in the Government Schools and also the specialist teachers who were
working against the non-sanctioned posts. On the strength of the said order,
the appointment of 54 physical education teachers who were similarly placed
as the petitioner was regularised. On coming to know about the regularisation
of the aforesaid teachers, several teachers similarly placed as the petitioner
herein, approached the Government seeking regularisation.
3. The petitioner states that he, along with similarly placed teachers,
submitted representations before the Government. When no action was taken,
they approached this Court and by Ext.P7 judgment dated 16.03.2020, this
Court had directed the Government to take a decision on the representation
made by the petitioner and others within a period of eight weeks. While so,
Ext.P8 Government Order was passed on 26.02.2021 as per which it was
ordered that the appointment of specialist teachers like the petitioner herein
shall be regularised with effect from 04.10.2012. Though the claim of the
petitioner was that his appointment ought to have been regularised with effect
from 5.6.2000, despite the Government order, his appointment was not
regularised even from 4.10.2012.
4. Later, in purported compliance with the directions issued by this
Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the Government, instead of passing the order,
passed the mantle to the District Educational Officer and the said authority was
asked to take the decision. This, according to the petitioner, is against the
directions issued by this Court. He contends that no orders have been passed
to date.
5. The petitioner states that Exts.P12 and P13 orders were later
passed in respect of the teachers similarly placed as the petitioner herein. The
contention of the petitioner is that the benefit of the orders granted to the
teachers as per Exts.P12 and P13 should have been extended to him as well. It
is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court
seeking the following reliefs:
i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibit P9 order
so far it is against the petitioner after calling for the records leading to the
same;
ii) issue a writ of declaration, declaring the appointment of the
petitioner as regular with effect from 05.06.2000 and the petitioner be
paid all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
6. I have heard Sri. D. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
7. Having considered the submissions, it appears that this Court
while disposing of W.P.(C) No.8044/2020 had directed the Government to take
up the representation submitted by the petitioner and others and to take a
decision within 8 weeks. However, instead of complying with the directives,
the Government has passed Ext.P9 order directing the District Educational
Officer, Kannur to take a decision on the representation submitted by the
petitioner and others. I find that insofar as certain Seetha Devi is concerned,
who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8044/2020, the Assistant Educational
Officer issued proceedings granting approval however, it was with effect from
4.10.2012. This Court by Ext.P10 interim order had directed the Government to
reconsider the issue and later, by judgment dated 12.8.2021, the writ petition
was disposed of directing the Government to take a decision on Ext.P13. I also
find that Ext.P12 and P13 orders have been passed by the Government
granting reliefs in respect of persons who are similarly placed as the
petitioner. The learned Government Pleader has submitted before this Court
that the District Educational Officer, Thalassery has not passed any orders
pursuant to Ext.P9 order passed by the Government dated 31.05.2021.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the
submissions made across the Bar, I am of the opinion that this writ petition
can be disposed of with directions. Resultantly, there will be a direction to the
petitioner to file a fresh representation narrating all facts and circumstances
before the 1st respondent within a period of ten days from today. If such a
representation is filed, the 1st respondent shall take up the same and pass
appropriate orders, as per procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions
of law, taking note of Exts.P12 and P13 orders passed in favour of persons
similarly placed as the petitioner. The 1st respondent shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent which
may either be physically or through video conferencing. Orders, as directed
above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two
months from the date of filing of such representation.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17779/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MANAGER DATED
5.6.2000.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P)
NO.116/2012/G.EDN DATED 12.4.2012
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)
NO.312/12/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2012
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR DATED
13.6.2013
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT
G.O.NO.3999/2019/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2019 IN
FAVOUR OF SMT. P.RANJINI ISSUED BY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 10.2.2020 BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.2020
IN W.P.(C) NO.8044/2020
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.130/2021/G.EDN DATED 26.2.2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.NO.2869/2021/G.EDN DATED 31.5.2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)
NO.15592/2021 DATED 4.8.2021
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.15592/2021 DATED 12.8.2021
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.NO.3495/2019/G.EDN DATED 2.9.2019
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)
NO.108/2001/G.EDN DATED 23.3.2001 IN
RESPECT OF 29 NEEDLE TEACHERS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
