Sreeja V J vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9452 Ker

WP(C) NO. 27542 OF 2022           1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 27542 OF 2022


PETITIONER/S:

    1     SREEJA V J
          AGED 48 YEARS
          U.P.S.A, A.U.P SCHOOL, VARODE POST,
          OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679102.
    2     SMITHA K N,
          AGED 41 YEARS
          U.P.S.A, A.U.P SCHOOL, VARODE POST,
          OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679102.

          BY ADVS.
          POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM
          K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

    2     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

    3     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

    4     ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.
 WP(C) NO. 27542 OF 2022             2



    5     MANAGER,
          A.U.P SCHOOL, VARODE POST,
          OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679102.


          SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27542 OF 2022                     3



                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners contend that they are working as UPSAs in AUP School,

Varode, Ottapalam. They were appointed as per Exhibits P1 and P7 orders,

which are dated 16.07.2007 and 01.06.2009, respectively. They have

approached this Court, being aggrieved by the rejection of their request to

grant approval of their appointment from the initial date.

2. The petitioners contend that with a prayer to grant approval from the

initial date of appointment, they approached the 1st respondent and preferred

separate revision petitions. Without considering the revision petitions on its

merits, the 1st respondent remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent for

consideration and disposal.

3. They approached this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the

matter, and by Ext.P12 judgment, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to

consider the matter by reckoning that the manager is deemed to have

executed the bond.

4. The 3rd respondent rejected the revision petitions by Ext.P13 order

holding that the posts to which the petitioners were appointed had not been

sanctioned as the original staff fixation was not revised by the 4th respondent.

5. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the 3rd respondent

cannot be sustained under law. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are

stated to have preferred Exts.P15 and P16 revision petitions before the 1st

respondent, which are stated to be pending.

6. It is in the above circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking

issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P15 and P16

adverting to Exts.P4 and P5 within a time frame and with due notice.

7. I have heard Sri. P.P. Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

8. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to

the 5th respondent is dispensed with.

9. 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) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

consider, and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P15 and P16,

adverting to Exts.P4 and P5 after affording an opportunity of

being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioners

herein or their authorized representatives, and the 5th

respondent. While considering the petition, the Secretary to

Government shall be free to reckon that the Managers would

be deemed to have executed the bond and also that they

would be obliged to make appointments from the list of

protected teachers equal to the number of appointments

approved during the ban period. It is made clear that the

orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be subject to the

final orders passed by the Apex Court in the pending

petitions.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously,

in any event, within four months from the date of production

of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioners 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) 27542/2022

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L. DIS.D/3178/07 DATED 22/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 26/03/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT .

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D. DIS/32749/08/ RA(1)/DPI DATED 18/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS. D/1537/09 DATED 28/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT .

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER .

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. D/2660/09 DATED 27/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT .

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/7/2017 IN W.A. NO. 2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT .

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 10/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT .

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 10/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/06/2022 IN WP(C) NO.5194/2022 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.

B4/1072/2022 DATED 01/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.D/420/2022 DATED 05/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 10/08/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONERS.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 10/08/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL