Sherin Francis C vs The Director Of General Education ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20269 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17465 OF 2021           1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 17465 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

     1       SHERIN FRANCIS C.
             AGED 40 YEARS
             W/O.ANIL K.PAPPACHAN, RESIDING AT KAINIKKARA HOUSE,
             P.O.CHUVANNAMANNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680652.

             BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
             (HIGHER SECONDARY SECTION)
             HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THYCAUD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

     2       THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
             HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 011.

     3       THE CORPORATE MANAGER
             CMS CORPORATE, MANAGEMENT (COCHIN AREA),
             ROUND WEST, THRISSUR - 680 001.




             SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   30.09.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17465 OF 2021               2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was appointed as leave substitute HSST

(Maths) from 19.09.2007 to 04.09.2012 in the LWA vacancy of a certain K.D.

Babu who had availed leave for about 5 years from 05.09.2007. The leave

substitute appointment was later approved by the 2nd respondent and

probation of the petitioner was declared on completion of two years of

service on a continuous period of three years. It is the case of the petitioner

that a Higher Secondary School Teacher is entitled to reappointment in the

termination vacancy as held by this Court in Jayasree Vs. Director of HSE

[2009 (2) KLT 352]. In the light of the principles laid down in Jayasree,

the petitioner is stated to have filed Ext.P7 petition before the 1st

respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that she has approached this

Court seeking to quash Ext.P6 notification to the extent of initiating selection

process for appointment of HSST (Maths) by the 3rd respondent and for

further directions.

2. Though notice was served on the 3rd respondent, none appears.

This Court, by order dated 31.08.2021 has granted an interim order of stay of

all further proceedings for the selection and appointment to the post of HSST

(Maths) in the 3rd respondent School.

3. Sri R.K. Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are

issued to the 1st respondent to expedite the hearing of Ext.P7 petition and

take a decision and till orders are passed, to maintain the interim order.

4. I have heard Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government

Pleader. I find that despite service of notice on the 3rd respondent, they

have not cared to appear.

5. 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) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

assertions made in Ext.P7 petition, there will be a

direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and

pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, after affording an

opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually,

to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative

and the 3rd respondent. Until appropriate orders are

passed, the interim order granted by this Court on

31.08.2021 shall continue.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two

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.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17465/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS HSST (MATHS) DATED 19/09/2007.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/06/2008.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 03/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009(2) KLT 352 DATED 08/04/2009.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08/04/2021.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 18/08/2021.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 24/08/2021.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL