Jazna Mol M vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9228 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9228 Ker
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2022

Kerala High Court

Jazna Mol M vs The State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2022

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

         WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944

                          WP(C) NO. 24653 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              JAZNA MOL M
              AGED 35 YEARS
              WIFE OF RIVAS I.V., HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (PART TIME)
              (ARABIC), ARAVUKAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
              PUNNAPRA P. O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688004
              (RESIDING AT PUTHIYODU HOUSE, VANDANAM P.O.
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688005) (M94000 48398)


              BY ADVS.
              V.A.MUHAMMED
              V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

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

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

     3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
              CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

     4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
              GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL JUNCTION,
              ALAPPUZHA-688011.

     5        THE MANAGER,
              ARAVUKAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.
              PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA 688 004.

              SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24653 OF 2022                       2




                                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was appointed as HST (Part Time) Arabic

with effect from 26.7.2021 against a retirement vacancy which arose on

1.6.2020. Though the proposal was submitted by the Manager before the

DEO, the same was returned on the ground that the Manager has no

approval. Being aggrieved on refusing approval, the petitioner preferred a

revision petition before the Government. However, the same was rejected by

Ext.P7. The contention of the petitioner herein is that Ext.P7 is illegal as it is

merely a letter issued by the concerned respondent. Reliance is placed on

the judgment of this Court in Sudheer v. M.V.Susheela and others [2009

(4) KLT 29] to substantiate the contentions. It is in the afore circumstances

that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P4 and P7 set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval to the appointment of the petitioner as HST Part Time Arabic from 26.7.2021 onwards.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as HST Part Time Arabic from 26.7.2021 onwards.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader, and I have considered the

submissions advanced.

3. Having considered the submissions, I find that the revision

petition filed by the petitioner has been casually rejected by Ext.P7, which is

a letter issued by the Secretary to the Government to the petitioner. This

Court, in Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others [2009 (4) KLT 29]

has laid down the principles emphasizing the manner in which statutory

appeals and revisions preferred by an aggrieved person before the

Government are to be disposed of. This Court had emphatically held that

whatever be the nature of jurisdiction, whether it be appellate or revisional,

conferred on the Government, the decision has to be taken as provided

under Article 166 of the Constitution of India read with the relevant rules of

business. The impugned order will not satisfy the essentials of an executive

order passed by the Government in a revision petition filed by an aggrieved

person. In that view of the matter, I am unable to sustain Ext.P7. In view

of the order above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can be

issued to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 and take a decision in

accordance with law, adverting to the precedents cited by the petitioner in

the writ petition..

4. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with

the following directions:

a) Exhibit P7 order passed by the 1st respondent will

stand quashed.

b) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

reconsider Exhibit-P6, as per procedure and in adherence

to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of

being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner

herein or her authorized representative and the 5th

respondent.

c) 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.

d) 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.