Saleena Kakkattuchalil vs The Deputy Director Of Education
2022 Latest Caselaw 5932 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
        TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 17570 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

            SALEENA KAKKATTUCHALIL,
            PUTHUVEETTILKANDI HOUSE, OZHUKUR P.O,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673642.

            BY ADVS.
            P.CHANDRASEKHAR
            K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
            SATHEESH V.T.
            MANJARI G.B.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
            MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676504.

    2       THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
            VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676304.

    3       THE MANAGER,
            MISM UP SCHOOL, PENGATTUKUNDILPARAMBA P.O.
            KANNAMANGALAM WEST, VIA AR NAGAR,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676304.

    4       THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
            KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.



            SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17570 OF 2022            2




                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court and had

preferred W.P.(C) No.26291 of 2013 and by judgment dated

22.1.2018, the writ petition was allowed and it was ordered that

the petitioner is entitled to be given notional appointment in the

vacancy which arose on 5.11.2007 as a Rule 51A claimant and

the protected hand working in the school can be accommodated

in the next arising vacancy. The educational authorities were

also directed to issue appropriate orders within a period of three

months.

2. The said order was challenged before this Court by the

Manager and by Ext.P2 judgment dated 20.5.2020 in W.A.No.921

of 2018, their Lordships of the Division Bench after considering

the entire facts and circumstances observed as follows:-

"Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner should be accommodated in the

place of the protected teacher cannot be sustained. The protected teacher was appointed after getting permission from the educational authorities on 5/2/2008 and he was continuing. He is about to reach the age of superannuation. Under such circumstances, petitioner could aspire for getting an appointment only in the next arising vacancy. At the relevant time when the protected teacher was appointed, there was no situation which warranted considering of a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER as the petitioner was not appointed in the leave vacancy during the relevant time. That apart, the findings by the educational authorities was that she had abandoned the job on 12/9/2007.

Taking into consideration all these facts, we are of the view that the writ appeals require to be allowed and accordingly we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition is disposed of as under:-

The petitioner shall be appointed as Full Time Arabic Teacher in the next arising vacancy in the school managed by the 4 th respondent. "

3. In terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench,

the 2nd respondent has issued directions to the 3rd respondent

to appoint the petitioner as a Full-time Arabic Teacher in the

School from 1.6.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that

though more than a year has elapsed, no action has been taken

by the 2nd respondent. In the afore circumstances, the

petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 1st

respondent seeking to implement Ext.P3 order or in the

alternative to initiate proceedings under Chapter III of Rule 7 of

the KER.

4. I have heard Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the

learned Senior Government Pleader. In view of the limited

nature of the relief sought for, notice to the 3rd 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.P4, in the light of

Exts.P2 and P3, after affording an opportunity of

being heard, either physically or virtually, to the

petitioner herein or her authorised

representative and the 3rd respondent.

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.

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) 17570/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2018 IN WP(C) NO. 26291 OF 2013.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2020 IN W.A NO. 921 OF 2018.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. C/3504/2021 DATED 04.03.2022 DIRECTED THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.05.2022 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL