Kerala High Court
Karthika L vs The State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 19368 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. 19368 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
KARTHIKA L
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER (UPST), M V HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR, P.O.POOVAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695525.
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 II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.
5 THE MANAGER,
M V HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARUMANOOR, P.O.POOVAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695525.
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. 19368 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 12.11.2010 against a new division 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 respondent/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.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19368/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2010.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.11310/2020 DATED 10.6.2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.
372/2021/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED
16.1.2021.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/20068/2021
DATED 22.2.2021 OF THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10.8.2021
(WITHOUT EXHIBITS).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
