Sreedeep.K.R vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6614 Ker

          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. 2168 OF 2021

PETITIONER/S:

           SREEDEEP.K.R
           AGED 32 YEARS
           SON OF RAMACHANDRAN, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER
           (COMPUTER SCIENCE), HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KERALASSERY,
           PALAKKAD-678 641.
           BY ADVS.
           V.A.MUHAMMED
           SRI.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 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 MANAGER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KERALASSERY,
           PALAKKAD-678 641.
    5      THE RINCIPAL, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KERALASSERY,
           PALAKKAD-678 641.
           BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA



           SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP


     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. 2168 OF 2021

                                      2


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he was appointed as HSST (Computer

Application) as per Exhibit P6 order in the Keralassery Higher Secondary

School, Palakkad, an aided school managed by the 4th respondent. The

grievance of the petitioner is that approval for his appointment has been

declined by the official respondents without assigning any reason. It is

pointed out that a certain Sri.C.Radhakrishnan, who was appointed along

with the petitioner as HSST (Jr.)(Commerce) and similarly placed as the

petitioner was granted approval but the petitioner was discriminated

against. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this

Court seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment

of the petitioner as HSST (Computer Science) from 02.02.2019 onwards and

also to disburse the attendant benefits.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent,

wherein it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as HSST (Computer

Application), by the then Manager certain Sri. Vasudevan Unni, along with

Sri. C. Radhakrishnan, HSST (Jr.)(Commerce), in a post which was created

on 20.08.2019. According to the respondent, while processing the proposal

for approval, it is found that there was a vacancy of HSST left to be filled on

by by-transfer quota, and a claim for which has been raised by a fully WP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2021

qualified HSA (Malayalam). It is contended that the appointment of the

petitioner by the Manager could not be justified for the above reason. If the

3rd respondent ventures to grant approval to the petitioner, it may result in

seniority issues between the petitioner and Smt. N. Smitha. It is further

submitted that Smt. N. Smitha has now been appointed and a proposal has

been submitted before the Regional Deputy Director (RDD) by the Manger,

which is pending. However, approval was not granted as the Manager who

appointed Smt.Smitha was not an approved manager.

3. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused

the records.

4. From the counter affidavit, it is borne out that it was in duly

created posts that the petitioner and Sri C. Radhakrishan were appointed.

The only reason stated by the respondents for non-grant of approval is that

the approval of the appointment of a by-transfer appointee has not been

granted and therefore, in all likelihood, seniority issues may arise. The

records reveal that the delay in granting approval of the appointment of

Smt.Smitha is for the reason that she was granted appointment by an

unapproved manager. I am of the considered opinion that there is no

reason to delay the grant of approval to the petitioner for the above reason.

Necessary directions can be issued to the 3rd respondent to grant approval WP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2021

to the petitioner herein. Insofar as the seniority issues between the

petitioner and Smt. N. Smitha, HSA (Malayalam) is concerned, the said issue

can be resolved as and when approval of the appointment of Smt. N. Smitha

is granted.

5. Resultantly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the

3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as HSST

(Computer Application) from the date of appointment and to disburse the

attendant benefits. The respondents will be at liberty to resolve the

seniority issues between the petitioner herein and Smt. N. Smitha, HSA

(Malayalam) after approval of appointment is granted to Smt Smitha.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

avs WP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2168/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/B1/595/2017 DATED 25.03.2017 OF THE DEO, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.125/2019/GEDN DATED 20.08.2019 OF THE GOVT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN CHANDRIKA DAILY DATED 20.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 01.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 02.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.C. DATED 02.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J/14611/2019/RDD/MLPM/HSE/K.DIS DATED 16.06.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING OF THE MANAGER DATED 22.06.2020.