Randhya vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 9896 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944

                   WP(C) NO. 26786 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

    1      RANDHYA
           AGED 36 YEARS
           D/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
           POURNAMI, IRINGAL, VATAKARA,
           KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 521.

    2      DIVYA K.
           D/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
           OTHIYATH HOUSE, PALLIKAVU, KOYILANDI,
           KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 305.

           BY ADVS.
           K.MOHANAKANNAN
           H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

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

    3      DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
           MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE 673 002.

    4      ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER MELADI
           KOZHIKODE 673 529.

    5      THE MANAGER
           THRIKKOTTOOR AUP SCHOOL,
           THIKKODI, KOZHIKODE 673 529.
 WP(C) NO. 26786 OF 2022

                              2


           BY ADV NAVANEETH D.PAI

           SRI PREMCHAND R NAIR SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26786 OF 2022

                                      3


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein have approached this Court challenging Exhibits

P4, P5, P7, and P8 orders and for a further direction to the 2nd respondent to

approve the appointment of the petitioners on daily wage basis as directed in

Exhibit P3 within a time frame.

2. The petitioners contend that the 1st petitioner was appointed as

Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) in the Thrikkottur A.U.P. School w.e.f.

18.07.2019 as per Exhibit P1 order in a retirement vacancy consequent to the

retirement of Smt. Geetha. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as LPST in the

same school w.e.f. 18.07.2019 as per Exhibit P2 order in a regular vacancy

that arose consequent to the promotion of certain Smt. Jayasree as

Headmistress.

3. The approval was rejected on the ground that the Manager, in

violation of the directions issued by this Court in terms of Exhibit P3 interim

orders issued in I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2019 in W.P.(C.) No. 14678/2019

appointed the petitioners on a scale of pay basis instead of on daily wages.

4. I have heard Sri K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader. WP(C) NO. 26786 OF 2022

5. In Exhibit P5 order of rejection concerning the 1st petitioner, all

that is stated is that the appointment has been made on a scale of pay basis

in violation of the directions issued by this Court. However, I find that in

Exhibit P1 order, Exhibit P3 interim order is specifically referred to, and it has

been mentioned that the appointment is made only on daily wage basis.

Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the reasons stated that no

approval has been granted to one Haridas. However, it appears from the

records that approval was later granted to Haridas and that he has retired

from service. I also find from Exhibit P3 interim order that this Court had

permitted the Manager to make appointments of the teachers on a daily

wage basis subject to further orders.

6. In that view of the matter, and going by Exhibits P1 and P2, the

reasons stated by the respondents that approval has been made on a scale

of pay cannot be sustained.

7. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

(a) Exhibits P4, P5, P7, and P8 will stand quashed.

(b) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant

approval to the appointment of the petitioners purely on a daily

wage basis, as directed in Exhibit P3 interim order.

WP(C) NO. 26786 OF 2022

(c) 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 the judgment.

(d) 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.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

avs WP(C) NO. 26786 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26786/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 18.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A.2/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14678/2019 DATED 17.6.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/11856/2019 DATED 6.10.2020 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, MELADY.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/193422/2020 DATED 6.4.2022 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/192845/2020 DATED 6.10.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENTS OF APPROVAL OF SHRI.VISHNU (LPST)

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/11854/2019 DATED 06/10/2020 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, MELADY.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/193423/2020 DATED 06.04.2020 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA.