Rashmi.S vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19627 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 19627 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Rashmi.S vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2021

WP(C) NO. 19358 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. 19358 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          RASHMI.S
          UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER (UPST) M V HIGHER HIGHER
          SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR P.O.POOVAR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525.

          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
          FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

    4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.

    5     THE MANAGER,
          MV HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR P.O.POOVAR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525.



          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP


     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. 19358 OF 2021               2

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA in the M.V. Higher

Secondary School, Arumanoor, an aided school under the management of the

5th respondent, on 6.8.2011 against a regular vacancy. She was retrenched

from service with effect from 15.7.2017 while she was in approved service.

According to the petitioner, she ought to have been treated as a protected

teacher in the same School. In the said circumstances, she is stated to have

submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Government with a request to treat

her as a protected teacher in the parent school with payment of salary from

15.7.2017 till the date of actual deployment on the ground that the undue delay

in appointment of the petitioner and consequential deployment in terms of G.O.

(P) No.29/2016/G.Edn. dated 29.1.2016 was not her fault. The petitioner states

that though the representation was submitted on 10.8.2021, no action has been

taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court

seeking issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider and take a

decision on Ext.P5 within a time frame with due notice.

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

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In view of the limited nature of

the relief sought for, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.

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 at the admission stage

itself by issuing the following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

made by the petitioner in Ext.P5, there will be a direction to the

1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders

on Ext.P5 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 her

authorised representatives as well as the party

respondents/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.