Mini V.S vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6325 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6325 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Mini V.S vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2022

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
        FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

            MINI V.S
            LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, A.U.P.SCHOOL,
            THESSERY, KANAKAMALA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            M.R.ANISON
            V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD)
            P.A.RINUSA


RESPONDENT/S:

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

    2       THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            IRINJALAKUDA, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O.,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 121.

    3       THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307.

    4       THE MANAGER,
            A.U.P.SCHOOL, THESSERY, KANAKAMALA.P.O,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 689.

    5       BILLIJIN.K.I.,
            UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, A.U.P.SCHOOL, THESSERY,
            KANAKAMALA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 689.



            SRI PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2022        2




                          JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is that she is the senior most

LPST working in the AUP School, Thessery, with effect from

1.6.1992. She is now aged 54 years. Relying on Chapter XIV

A of Rule 45B of the KER and Rule 18 of the Right of Children

to Free and Compulsory Education Kerala Rules, 2010, it is

contended that she is permanently exempted from passing

the departmental tests. According to the petitioner, the 4th

respondent had appointed the petitioner as a permanent

Headmistress of the School with effect from 1.4.2022.

However, the request for approval was rejected on the sole

ground that the petitioner had not passed the departmental

test. Immediately after the rejection of the approval, the 4th

respondent has appointed the 5th respondent as the

Headmistress of the school though she is much junior to the

petitioner herein. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of this Court and contends that teachers who have

crossed 50 years of age are not required to pass the

departmental tests. Stating all these aspects, the petitioner is

stated to have preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 2nd

respondent which is stated to be pending. The grievance of

the petitioner is that pending consideration of the appeal,

steps have been taken by the 3rd respondent to approve the

appointment of the 5th respondent. In the afore

circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking

directions.

2. I have heard Sri.M.R.Anison, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Premchand R. Nair, the

learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to

pass, notice to the party respondents is dispensed with.

4. 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) There will be a direction to the 2nd

respondent to take up, consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P5, after affording an

opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised

representative and the party respondents.

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. Until orders are passed on Ext.P5,

the official respondents shall refrain from granting

approval of appointment to the 5th respondent.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to

produce a copy of the writ petition along with the

judgment before the concerned respondent to

ensure compliance.