Kerala High Court
Seena P vs Government Of Kerala on 24 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SEENA P.
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.GIRISHWARAN PV., NEEDLE WORK TEACHER,
GMUP SCHOOL, RAMANTHALI P.O., PAYYANNUR,
KANNUR 670 308
BY ADV D.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANNUR DISTRICT, THAVAKKARA P.O., KANNUR PIN 670 002
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 308
4 MANAGER
JANAKI MEMORIAL U.P. SCHOOL, CHERUPUZHA,
KUNHIMANGALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 309
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20096 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed as a Needle work teacher
in the Janaki Memorial UP School, Cherupuzha, an aided school, under the
management of the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 order. Though the
appointment was made on a retirement vacancy, her 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. She 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 she, 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.
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.P11 and P12 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.P11 and P12 should have been extended to her 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 Exhibits P8, P9
and P10 orders to the extent it is against the claim of petitioner after
calling for the records leading to the same.
ii) issue a writ of declaration, declaring the appointment of
petitioner be approved with effect from 25.9.1990 (the initial date of
appointment as per Exhibit P1) as regular and the petitioner be paid all
consequential benefits.
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.P10 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.P14 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.P11 and P12 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, Kannur has not passed any orders
pursuant to Ext.P10 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.P11 and P12 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
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20096/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF
THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
MANAGER DATED 25.9.1990
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 DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF KANNUR DATED 13.6.2013 POOLING AND
APPOINTING TEACHERS TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.NO.3999/2019/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2019
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SMT. RENJINI
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF GENERAL
EDUCATION DATED NIL
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.NO.130/2021/G.EDN DATED 26.2.2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 4.8.2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.NO.2869/2021/G.EDN DATED 31.5.2021
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.NO.3495/2019/G.EDN DATED 2.9.2019
APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF 44 PHYSICAL
EDUCATION TEACHERS FROM THEIR APPOINTMENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OIF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.
(MS) NO.108/2001/G.EDN DATED 23.3.2001
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2021
IN W.P.(C) NO.17779/2021
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
4.9.2021 IN W.P.C NO.15592/2021
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2021
IN W.P.(C) NO.15592/2021
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
