Arunraj R vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19608 Ker

WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021               1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              ARUNRAJ R.,
              AGED 28 YEARS,
              S/O LATE RAJAN S, NEERANJANAM, KUZHIMATHICADU
              P.O.THALAVOORKONAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 509.

              BY ADV ALEXANDER JOSEPH


RESPONDENTS:

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

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

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

       4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             KOTTARAKARA-695 606.

       5     THE MANAGER,
             SREE NARAYANA GURU SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL KADAIKODU,
             KADAIKODU P.O.KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 509.

              SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    17.09.2021,   THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021               2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he joined service as Upper Primary School

Teacher in the Sree Narayana Guru Sanskrit High School, Kadaikodu, an

aided school under the management of the 5th respondent. The

appointment was on a promotion vacancy and he joined the service on

1.4.2016. However, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by

the 4th respondent. Though an appeal was preferred by the Manager, the

same was dismissed by the 3rd respondent. The revision petition preferred

before the 1st respondent was also rejected by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner

states that the 5th respondent had filed Exts.P3 and P4, application and

sworn statement before the 4th respondent undertaking that the next arising

vacancy shall be filled up by protected teachers. The petitioner states that

later the Government came out with Ext.P5 order. The petitioner is stated to

have submitted Ext.P6 application before the 4th respondent by relying on

Ext.P5 order requesting to approve his appointment. The grievance of the

petitioner is that no orders have been passed on his application. Later, he is

stated to have preferred Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent

seeking for issuance of directions to the 4th respondent. He contends that

no action has been taken. While the writ petition was pending consideration,

the 4th respondent rejected Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner by

passing Ext.P8 order. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is stated to

have preferred Ext.P9 revision petition under Chapter XIV A of Rule 92 of

the KER.

2. I have heard Sri. Alexander Joseph, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior

Government Pleader.

3. Though various other reliefs are claimed, Sri.Alexander Joseph,

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the limited

request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to take up

and consider Ext.P9 revision petition within a time frame.

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.P9 as per

procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law,

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his

authorised representative and the 5th respondent.

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.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9023/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2016 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.6.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.4.2019 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4/1499/2021 DATED 30/04/2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27/07/2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL