Beena Valiyaparambath vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7559 Ker

WP(C) NO. 29040 OF 2021            1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 29040 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           BEENA VALIYAPARAMBATH
           AGED 46 YEARS
           HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH), SREE NARAYANA TRUST
           HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT -
           670 007. (NOW WORKING AS H.S.A.(ENGLISH) IN SNTHSS,
           NATTIKA, TRISSUR).

             BY ADV POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM


RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
             SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
     2       DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
             OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
             JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
     3       DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
             KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
             KANNUR - 670 001.
     4       DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             KANNUR - 670 002.
     5       MANAGER
             S.N.TRUST SCHOOLS, P.B.NO.63, KOLLAM - 691 001.
             BY ADV A.N.RAJAN BABU

             SRI PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   24.06.2022,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29040 OF 2021               2




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is working as HSA (English) in the Sree

Narayana Trust Higher Secondary School, Nattika. She was initially appointed

in an additional division vacancy at SN Trust HSS, Thottada on 10.11.2008.

However, the appointment was rejected on the ground that she was

accommodated in a newly created post while the economic ban was in force

and that the Manager had failed to execute the bond. Later, in terms of

subsequent Government Orders, the appointment was approved with effect

from 01.06.2011 by including her in the Teacher's package. The petitioner

asserts that the petitioner in the said circumstances preferred Ext.P7 revision

petition before the Government seeking approval of appointment from the

initial date of appointment. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court, Ext. P9

order has been passed holding that the approval cannot be granted on the

ground that the petition filed by the Managers is pending before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The petitioner asserts that the said stand cannot be accepted

in the light of clause 6 of Ext.P10 Government Order, wherein it has been

clarified that the appointments made by the Managers without following the

conditions in G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.01.2010 can also be

approved, however, subject to the outcome of the SLP pending before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner states that persons similarly placed as

the petitioner has been granted approval as per Ext.P11 order. It is in the

afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking direction

to the respondents to reconsider Ext.P9 in the light of Ext.P10.

2. Heard Sri.P.P.Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.Premchand R Nair, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

3. It appears that while rejecting the request made by the petitioner

herein, by order dated 10.11.2021, the 1st respondent failed to take note of

the implications of Ext.P10 Government Order. Furthermore, it appears that

the teachers similarly placed as the petitioner have been granted the benefits

of Ext.P10 order as is evident from Ext.P11. In that view of the matter, Ext.P9

requires reconsideration.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the

submissions made across the bar, this writ petition will stand disposed of

directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 revision petition in the light

of Ext.P10 and pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of being

heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorized

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) 29040/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/3870/2010 DATED 05/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 29/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.B5/7421/08 DATED 31/07/2008 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.60930/J2/G.EDN.

DATED 25/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/7/2017 IN W.A.NO.2592/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 28/10/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/11/2020 IN WP(C) NO.24286/2020 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5050/2021/G.EDN.

DATED 10/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.4/2021/G.EDN. DATED 06/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5224/2021/G.EDN.

DATED 19/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL