Kerala High Court
K.N.Balaraman Nampoothiri vs Sreedharan P on 3 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 177 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4006/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.N.BALARAMAN NAMPOOTHIRI
AGED 55 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRI,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM),
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583.
BY ADVS.
K.A.MANZOOR ALI
P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ANNEX-11,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
(SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS)
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
PALAKKAD 678 001
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 2 :-
5 THE MANAGER
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583.
6 SMT. A.REMANI
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHEMATICS),
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583.
7 SRI. P.SREEDHARAN
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE),
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583.
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R7
ADV.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R6
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.208/2021, 318/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 208 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35914/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:
K.N.BALARAMAN NAMPOOTHIRI, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRI,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM),
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678583
(RESIDING AT KURUPPAKKATTUMANA, P.O.
SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT)
BY ADVS.
K.A.MANZOOR ALI
P.M.PAREETH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS:
1 SREEDHARAN P.,
AGED 50 YEARS, HSA, KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH
SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678583.
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678541.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014
(SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS)
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 4 :-
4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5 THE MANAGER,
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678583.
6 SMT. A. REMANI,
HEADMISTRESS-IN-CHARGE, KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH
SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678583.
BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R1
BY ADV.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R6
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.177/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 5 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 318 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4006/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:
A. REMANI, AGED 56 YEARS
WIFE OF SREENIVASAN,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHEMATICS)
(HEADMASTER IN CHARGE)
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583
(RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, ALANELLOOR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 601
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 5 & 7:
1 SRI. K.N. BALARAMAN NAMPOOTHIRI
AGED 55 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRI,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM)
KALLADI ABDU HAJI SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT,
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 6 :-
SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
(SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE OAS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS)
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001
5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MANNARKKAD , PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
6 THE MANAGER
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583
7 SRI P. SREEDHARAN,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE)
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583
BY ADV SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI (B/O) FOR R1
BY ADV.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R7
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.177/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 7 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
WA NO. 322 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35914/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
A.REMANI, AGED 56 YEARS
W/O SREENIVASAN,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHEMATICS)
(HEADMASTER IN CHARGE)
KALLADI ABDU HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT -678583
(RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, ALANELLOOR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678601
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SREEDHARAN P., AGED 50 YEARS
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE)
KALLADI ABDUL HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 583
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014
(SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 8 :-
INSTRUCTIONS)
4 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
5 THE MANAGER
KALLADI ABDUL HAJI HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTOPPADAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 583
BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R1
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, ALONG WITH WA.177/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
con. cases -: 9 :-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal Nos.177 & 208 of 2021
and
318 and 322 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2023
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
These writ appeals are preferred challenging the
common judgment in two writ petitions namely, W.P.(C)
Nos.35914 of 2018 and 4006 of 2019. Among the writ appeals,
W.A.Nos.177 of 2021 and 208 of 2021 are preferred by the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 and W.A.Nos.318 of 2022
and 322 of 2022 are preferred by the sixth respondent in W.P.
(C) No.4006 of 2019, who is also the fifth respondent in W.P.(C)
No.35914 of 2018.
2. The dispute relates to the rival claims made by
the petitioners in the writ petitions for appointment to the post
of Headmaster in an aided high school namely, Kalladi Abdu
Haji High School (the School). As common questions arise for
consideration in the appeals, they are disposed of by this
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in
this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in
W.P.(C) No.35914 of 2018.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Upper
Primary School Assistant in the School on 21.07.1992. While
continuing as such, he was appointed as High School Assistant
(HSA) in the School in a leave vacancy with effect from
19.07.1997. On termination of the said leave vacancy, the
petitioner was reverted as Upper Primary School Assistant.
Later, the petitioner was appointed again in the School in
another leave vacancy as HSA with effect from 15.01.2001.
While he was continuing as HSA, as the teacher in whose leave
vacancy the petitioner was appointed resigned from service,
the petitioner was regularly appointed as HSA in the said
vacancy without interruption and he was continuing as such.
4. While so, the post of Headmaster in the School
became vacant on 01.05.2016. As per Rule 44A(1) of Chapter
XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), only teachers who
have 12 years of continuous graduate service and who have
cleared the test in Kerala Education Act and the Kerala
Education Rules and Account Test (Lower) conducted by the
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
Kerala Public Service Commission, alone can be appointed as
Headmaster of a high school. The second proviso to the said
Rule clarifies that teachers who have attained the age of 50
years shall be exempted permanently from acquiring the test
qualification. On 10.06.2015, the Government issued an order
clarifying the second proviso to Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA KER
to the effect that in the case of appointment to the post of
Headmaster, preference shall be given to those teachers who
have acquired the test qualification specified in the Rule. The
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 being the senior most
teacher of the School who crossed the age of 50 was, in the
circumstances, appointed by the Manager as the Headmaster
of the School, even though he did not have the test
qualification. The proposal made by the Manager for approval
of the said appointment was turned down by the Educational
Officer as per Ext.P2 order, taking the stand that he does not
have the test qualification required in terms of Rule 44A(1) of
Chapter XIVA KER in the light of the Government Order dated
10.06.2015. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 did not
however challenge Ext.P2 order. The Manager of the School, in
the circumstances, appointed the petitioner as Headmaster of
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
the School on 26.09.2016, as per Ext.P3 order. The petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 did not challenge Ext.P3 order also as
provided for in Rule 44(2) of Chapter XIVA KER. Nevertheless,
the proposal made by the Manager to approve Ext.P3 order
was also turned down by the Educational Officer, taking the
view that the petitioner does not have 12 years graduate
service as required in terms of Rule 44A. Ext.P7 is the order
issued by the Educational Officer in this regard. The petitioner
challenged Ext.P7 order in Ext.P8 revision petition before the
Government. As Ext.P8 revision was not considered by the
Government, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.37901 of 2016, and
this Court disposed of the said writ petition in terms of Ext.P9
judgment directing the Government to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P8 revision within two months, after hearing the
petitioner as also others who are likely to be affected by the
orders to be passed. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, though
Ext.P8 revision petition was heard by the Government on
17.03.2017, the same was not disposed of. W.P.(C) No.35914 of
2018 was instituted by the petitioner in the above background
seeking a direction to the Government to comply with the
directions contained in Ext.P9 judgment.
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
Government disposed of Ext.P8 revision as per order dated
28.01.2019 directing the Educational Officer to appoint the
petitioner as the Headmaster of the School with effect from
26.09.2016 itself after holding that he has the requisite
graduate service. W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 was instituted
challenging Ext.P2 order of the Educational Officer as also the
order of the Government dated 28.01.2019 passed on Ext.P8
revision. The case set out by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006
of 2019 is that Ext.P2 order issued by the Educational Officer
declining the proposal for approval of his appointment as
Headmaster of the School is bad as he is entitled to the benefit
of exemption as provided for in the second proviso to sub-rule
(1) of Rule 44A; that in light of the direction in Ext.P9 judgment
that orders on Ext.P8 are to be passed after hearing all the
affected persons, he should have also been heard before
passing the order dated 28.01.2019. It is alleged by the
petitioner in the said writ petition that he has challenged
Ext.P2 order in revision before the Government on 01.11.2018.
6. The Government Order dated 10.06.2015
referred to in paragraph 4 above was held to be bad by this
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
Court on 20.09.2016, as per the judgment in Pavandoor
Higher Secondary School v. Sadanandan, 2016 (4) KLT
207 on the premise that a statutory provision cannot be
nullified by an executive order. On 13.12.2017, the
Government amended Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA KER by adding
a third proviso to it with retrospective effect from 01.06.2015,
clarifying that notwithstanding anything contained in the
second proviso, in the case of appointment to the post of
Headmaster, preference shall be given to those teachers who
have acquired the test qualification specified in the Rule. The
said amendment was also challenged in W.P.(C) No.4006 of
2019.
7. The learned Single Judge took the view that
inasmuch as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 has not
challenged the order declining approval of his appointment as
the Headmaster of the School then and there, he cannot be
heard to contend that he should have been appointed as the
Headmaster of the School at this distance of time. Although
the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 challenged Ext.P2
order in revision before the Government on 01.11.2018, the
learned Single Judge took the view that the said challenge was
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
belated. That apart, it has come out that when approval of the
appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster was also declined
by the Educational Officer, the Manager wanted to give charge
of the Headmaster to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019
and he refused to accept the same. According to the learned
Single Judge, the said conduct on the part of the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 would also preclude him from
contending that he should have been appointed as
Headmaster of the School in the vacancy that arose on
01.05.2016. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 was
dismissed and W.P.(C) No.35914 of 2018 was allowed, directing
that rights of the parties will be governed by the order passed
by the Government dated 28.01.2019 and directing the
Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.35914 of 2018 as Headmaster with
effect from the date of his appointment. As noted, it is
aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge that
the aforesaid appeals are preferred.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on
either side.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
W.P(C) No.4006 of 2019 argued with all vehemence that Ext.P2
order of the Educational Officer declining approval of his
appointment as Headmaster of the School is illegal inasmuch
as he is exempted from acquiring the test qualification under
the Rule. The learned counsel however conceded that even
though the executive order dated 10.06.2015 which was in
force at the relevant time has been held to be bad by this
Court, the amendment to the Rule brought later with
retrospective effect precludes him from pursuing the claim that
he should have been appointed in the vacancy that arose on
01.05.2016. He, however contended that the retrospective
effect given to the amendment is bad in law and it was so held
by this Court in Pavandoor Higher Secondary School v.
Sadanandan (supra) and in W.A.No.925 of 2019. The learned
counsel has also conceded that the decisions in the said two
cases have been doubted by another Division Bench and the
matter now stands referred to a Larger Bench of this Court for
pronouncement on the validity of the amendment. It was also
contended by the learned counsel that at any rate, the
Government Order dated 28.01.2019 which is under challenge
in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 is bad inasmuch as the Government
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
has not complied with the direction contained therein that
orders shall be passed on Ext.P8 revision petition only after
affording all the parties who are likely to be affected by the
order in the said revision petition.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of
2019 had a right of appeal against Ext.P3 order in terms of
which his client was appointed as Headmaster of the School
with effect from 26.09.2016, and inasmuch as he has not
challenged Ext.P3 order in appeal, he is precluded from
challenging the order of the Government dated 28.01.2019
upholding the said appointment as valid. It was also argued by
the learned counsel that the challenge made by the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 against Ext.P2 order is a belated
one and cannot be entertained by this Court. He has relied on
the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. A.
Durairaj, (2010) 14 SCC 389, in support of the said
proposition.
11. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent,
the senior most teacher of the School next in line to the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019, endorsed the arguments
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.4006 of 2019, as she is entitled to be considered for
appointment as Headmaster of the School after the retirement
of the petitioner W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019, if his claim is upheld
by this Court.
12. We have examined the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties on either side.
13. As noted, the vacancy of the Headmaster
arose in the School on 01.05.2016. Though the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 who was the senior most teacher in
the School at the relevant time was appointed by the Manager
as the Headmaster of the School, the said appointment was
not approved by the Educational Officer. A perusal of Ext.P2
order passed by the Educational Officer in this regard would
indicate that even though the order issued by the Government
on 10.06.2015 clarifying the second proviso to Rule 44A is not
referred to therein, the order is one issued placing reliance on
the said order of the Government. Since the Manager of the
School did not challenge the said order, inasmuch as the same
is an order dealing with the right of the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.4006 of 2019 to be considered for appointment to the post
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
of Headmaster in the School, he should have certainly
challenged the said decision in a manner known to law. The
said order was held to be bad by this Court only long thereafter
on 20.09.2016, in terms of the judgment in Pavandoor
Higher Secondary School (supra). Immediately thereupon,
on 13.12.2017, the Government introduced the third proviso to
Rule 44A(1) with retrospective effect and restored the status
quo ante. It is seen that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of
2019 preferred revision petition before the Government
challenging Ext.P2 order on 01.11.2018 after the decision of
this Court in Pavandoor Higher Secondary School (supra).
In other words, it is almost after two and a half years, the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 challenged Ext.P2 order
declining approval of his appointment as Headmaster in the
School. It is relevant in this regard to note that in the
meanwhile, on 26.09.2016 itself, the petitioner was appointed
as the Headmaster of the School. Rule 44(2) confers a right of
appeal for persons aggrieved by the appointment of
Headmasters of the school before the Educational Officer. The
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 has not challenged the
appointment of the petitioner also availing the said remedy
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
that was available to him. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of
2019 cannot be heard to contend that he was not aware of the
said appointment. Be that as it may, the petitioner challenged
Ext.P7 order dated 24.10.2016 before the Government in
Ext.P8 revision filed on 21.11.2016 itself and approached this
Court immediately thereafter and obtained Ext.P9 judgment on
28.11.2016 directing the Government to consider Ext.P8
revision petition. It is in light of the direction issued by this
Court in Ext.P9 judgment that Ext.P8 revision was disposed of
by the Government on 28.01.2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.4006 of 2019 who challenged the said order before this
Court cannot also be heard to contend that he was not aware
of the various actions pursued by the petitioner against Ext.P7
order. It is trite that anyone who feels aggrieved by non-
selection to a particular post or orders in the nature of Ext.P2
declining approval of the appointment by the competent
authority, should approach the court/tribunal at the earliest. If
a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to
become stale and approaches the court/tribunal belatedly,
grant of any relief on the basis of such an application would
lead to serious administrative complications to the employer as
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
also difficulties to other employees, as it would upset their
rights. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the
learned Single Judge that the challenge made by the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 against Ext.P2 order is belated and
cannot be entertained. That apart, the petitioner is guilty of
laches also, inasmuch as he allowed Ext.P3 appointment of the
petitioner to become final without there being a challenge
against the same as provided for under Rule 44(2) of Chapter
XIVA KER. It is unnecessary for us, therefore, to examine the
correctness of Ext.P2 decision.
14. There is also no merit in the contention put
forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.4006 of 2019 that the Government Order dated 28.01.2019
is bad in law, inasmuch as the Government has not complied
with the direction contained in Ext.P9 judgment. True, it was
directed by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment that orders shall be
passed only after affording all parties who are likely to be
affected by the orders in the said revision petition. As noted,
the subject matter of Ext.P8 revision was the correctness of
Ext.P7 order issued by the Educational Officer declining
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster in
the School. The said appointment has been made since the
earlier appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4006 of
2019 as Headmaster of the School has not been approved by
the Educational Officer as per Ext.P2 order. As already noticed,
there was no challenge against Ext.P2 order from any corner
until Ext.P8 revision was heard by the Government on
17.03.2017. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the
Government was obliged to issue notice to the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.4006 of 2019 before orders were passed on Ext.P8
revision petition.
In light of the discussion aforesaid, we do not find
any merit in the appeals and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE.
ds 23.01.2023
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
APPENDIX OF WA 177/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.A.NO.925/2019 DATED 28.3.2019
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.63/2021/G.EDN. DATED 4.1.2021
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
APPENDIX OF WA 208/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA
NO.925/2019 DATED 28/03/2019.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.
63/2021/G.EDN. DATED 04/01/2021.
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
APPENDIX OF WA 318/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.A.NO.925/2019 DATED 28.3.2019
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.63/2021/G.EDN. DATED 4.1.2021
W.A. No.177 of 2021 and
APPENDIX OF WA 322/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.
NO.925/2019 DATED 28-03-2019
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(RT)NO.63/2021/G.EDN.DATED 04-01-2021
