Fousiya K vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 11339 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

                    WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

    1      FOUSIYA K
           AGED 37 YEARS
           UPST, AUP SCHOOL, THOTTEKKAD,
           PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM-673642.

    2      SUJIL G.,
           LPST, AUP SCHOOL, THOTTEKKAD,
           PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM-673642.

           BY ADVS.
           AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
           TONY AUGUSTINE

RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2      ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
           KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM-673642.

    3      MANAGER,
           AUP SCHOOL, THOTTEKKAD,
           PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM-673642.

           SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

                                       2



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners contend that they are working at the AUP School,

Thottekkad. They have approached this Court seeking issuance of directions

to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the 1st petitioner from

01.06.2010 and the 2nd petitioner from 10.01.2011 and to grant all

consequential benefits.

2. According to the petitioners, initially, their approval was not granted

on the ground that the petitioners were appointed during the ban period.

Later, approval was granted w.e.f. 01.06.2011. The petitioners assert that in

so far as the appointment of the seniors of the petitioners in service is

concerned, approval has been granted from the initial date itself. Stating all

these aspects, they are stated to have preferred Exhibit P4 revision petition.

3. When this matter was taken up for consideration, Sri. Augustine

Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that

seeking the above reliefs, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P4 revision

petition before the 1st respondent and direction be issued to the 1st

respondent to consider the same and take a decision within a time frame with

due notice.

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

4. I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

5. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, no

prejudice would be caused to the 3rd respondent if notice is dispensed with.

6. 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 Ext.P4, after

affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioners herein or their authorized

representative and the 3rd respondent.

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.

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

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

avs WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11656/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10.1.2011 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 15.12.2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 2.3.2022 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.