Aswathy P vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6607 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17751 OF 2022                1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 17751 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

             ASWATHY P
             AGED 28 YEARS
             W/O. SHINJITH. M, ASWATHI HOUSE, PEDIYATTUKUNNU,
             P.O.KADALUNDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 302.

             BY ADVS.
             KALEESWARAM RAJ
             THULASI K. RAJ


RESPONDENTS:

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

      2      DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
             DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695014.

      3      DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
             MANANCHIRA ROAD, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA
             673001

      4      DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             THAZHEKKOD, KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673004

      5      MANAGER,
             UMBICHY HAJEE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHALIYAM
             -673 301, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

             SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   09.06.2022,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17751 OF 2022                 2




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she was working in the post of HST (Physical

Science) in the Umbichy Hajee Higher Secondary School, Chaliyam from

15.06.2016 to 31.03.2016 and thereafter from 01.06.2017 to 31.03.2020.

The grievance of the petitioner concerns the denial of approval of

appointment on the ground that the Manager had not appointed any

protected teachers. The petitioner asserts that the list of protected teachers

were not made available to the Manager and therefore, the respondents

could not have denied approval on the ground that protected teachers were

not appointed. It is submitted that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4

revision petition before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. It is in

the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to

quash Exts.P1 and P2 and for other consequential reliefs.

2. This Court by order dated 1st June, 2022 had directed the

learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the DGE has

passed orders in the revision petition. On instructions, it is submitted by the

learned Government Pleader that the DGE has made over the matter to the

DEO, where the revision petition is pending consideration.

3. I have considered the submissions advanced. The contention of

Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that

the competent educational authorities have not forwarded the list of

protected hands to the Manager when the petitioner was appointed. The

learned counsel would place reliance on Moosakutty Vs. DEO, Wandoor

(2009 (3) KLT 8630) and Nadeera v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 790)

to hammer home his contention that denial of approval cannot be sustained.

It is further submitted that the revision petition was preferred before the 2nd

respondent and there was no justification in relegating the matter to the

DEO.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced, I am of the view

that there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent in

relegating the matter to the 4th respondent. Let the matter be heard by the

2nd respondent and appropriate orders be passed.

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd

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

petitioner herein or her authorised representative and the 5th respondent.

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. 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.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17751/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2017.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 10.12.2018.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 12.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L-2/9/2021/H.EDN DATED 18.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, UMBICHY HAJEE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHALIYAM.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL