Kerala High Court
Deepa Annie Mathew vs The 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. 18005 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
DEEPA ANNIE MATHEW
AGED 45 YEARS, WIFE OF JOSHI N P, HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL TEACHER (MALAYALAM), K C PAZHANIMALA HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 543
(RESIDING AT NEDUMPURATHIL, CHAKKUND, KANAKKANTHURUTHY,
PALAKKAD-678 683).
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT/S:
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,
(HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION WING), HOUSING BOARD
BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION,
B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD-678 001.
5 THE MANAGER,
KC PAZHANIMALA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAVASSERY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 543.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
WP(C) NO. 18005 OF 2022 2
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. 18005 OF 2022 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she has been appointed as HSST
(Malayalam) from 24.7.2017 onwards in K C Pazhanimala Higher
Secondary School, Kavassery, an aided school managed by the
5th respondent and governed by the provisions of the Kerala
Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the denial of approval of the appointment of the
petitioner by the educational authorities. The petitioner
contends that the revision petition filed by the Manager was
declined by the Government by Ext.P7 order. Referring to
Ext.P7, it is submitted that the same is nothing but a letter
issued by the Government. Relying on the law laid down in
Sudheer T. v. M.V. Suseela and Ors. [2009 (4) KLT 29], it is
submitted that the decision of the Government in statutory
appeals and revisions are to be in accordance with the rules of
business and should be communicated in the name of the
Governor. According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by the
order passed in the revision, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9
review petition before the 1st respondent. Though various other
prayers are sought, when the matter was taken up for
consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the
limited prayer at this stage is for issuance of directions to the
1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 review petition and to take a
decision in an expeditious time frame.
3. I have heard Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
4. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to
pass, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.
5. 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 1st
respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate
orders on Ext.P9, after affording an opportunity of
being heard, either physically or virtually, to the
petitioner herein or her authorised representative and
the 5th respondent.
b) 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.
c) 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.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18005/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 24-07-2017.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF
SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 21.07.2017.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
F/8766/17/RDD/HSE/ MLPM/K.DIS. DATED
20.12.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE MANAGER
DATED 24.01.2019.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ACD.A2/140569/2019/HSE DATED 31.08.2019 OF
THE JOINT DIRECTOR ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT BY THE DIRECTOR
DATED 25.02.2020.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
B2/140/2021/G.EDN. DATED 28.10.2021 OF THE
GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009
(3) KHC 991 DECIDED ON 09.09.2009.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 11.05.2022.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
