Susamma Joseph vs The Project Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 8644 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 24163 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          SUSAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS
          W/O. JOSEPH, PARADIYIL HOUSE, ODAKKAYAM,
          P.O.VETTILAPPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679639

          BY ADVS.
          U.K.DEVIDAS
          S.K.SREELAKSHMY



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE PROJECT OFFICER,
          INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NILAMBUR,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329

    2     URANGATTIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
          URANGATTIRI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
          ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673639

          BY ADV T.H.ARAVIND
          SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN[SR.GP]




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24163 OF 2023
                                          2


                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she has been permanently

appointed as a Nursery Teacher in the services of the 2 nd

respondent Panchayat, as evident from Ext.P1, and, therefore,

that she should be allowed to continue in service, until such

time as she attains the age of superannuation. She alleges

that, however, the 1st respondent - Project Officer has now

issued Ext.P3 notification, calling for candidates to fill up the

post which she is presently occupying and that this is illegal

and unlawful. She thus prays that Ext.P3 be set aside and she

be directed to be allowed to continue in service, until she

retires on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. The afore submissions of Smt.S.K.Sreelakshmy -

learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by

Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for the first respondent - Project Officer, arguing

that Ext.P3 has been issued because the post in question is not

one which had been substantively filled up with the petitioner.

She argued that the petitioner's engagement is only

contractual and therefore, that the first respondent was

completely without error in having invited Ext.P3.

3. Sri.T.H.Aravind - learned standing counsel for the WP(C) NO. 24163 OF 2023

second respondent, affirmed that Ext.P1 appointment order

had been issued to the petitioner and also that it does not

mention therein that she is being engaged on contract. He,

however, submitted that any such engagement can only be as

per the Government Orders and circulars which govern the

field; and therefore, that his client will abide by any directions

to be issued by this Court.

4. I have examined Ext.P1, which is the admitted order of

appointment of the petitioner. As rightly argued by

Smt.S.K.Sreelakshmi - learned counsel for the petitioner, the

said does not say that her client is being appointed on

contract. On the contrary, it records that she is being

appointed as per the resolution of the Grama Panchayat and

that she must report for duty within seven days.

5. Obviously, therefore, there is a certain amount of doubt

as to whether the recruitment and appointment of the

petitioner through Ext.P1 is substantive or otherwise. This has

not been considered by the first respondent, before issuing

Ext.P3 notice.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the first

respondent must hear the petitioner and take note of her WP(C) NO. 24163 OF 2023

contentions; thus culminating in an appropriate order, before

the vacancy in which she is now accommodated is attempted to

be filled up.

7. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the first

respondent to hear the petitioner, as also the Secretary of the

second respondent Panchayat and take a decision on her claim

for being allowed to continue until the age of retirement,

adverting to Ext.P1 order; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8. Needless to say, the question whether the petitioner is

entitled to continue and whether she has necessary

qualification for such purpose, are left open to be decided by

the first respondent during the afore exercise.

Until such time as the afore is done and the resultant

order communicated to the petitioner, no fresh appointment

will be effected against the post she is now occupying.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 24163 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24163/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.282/2000 DATED 19.01.2001 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRE-DEGREE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.6.1985

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT