Kerala High Court
Daisy Rodrigues vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2023
WP(C) NO. 36694 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 36694 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
DAISY RODRIGUES
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O FRANCIS SIMATHY, LPST, (TEACHER IN CHARGE)
LAIUPS, KADUKUTTY P.O.CHALKKUDY, THRISSUR-680315
(RESIDING AT MALLAMAIPARAMBIL KADUKUTTY.P.O THRISSUR
(DT)- 680309).
BY ADVS.
T.T.MUHAMOOD
A.RENJIT
V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
NAZEER HUZAIN.H
T.R.VISHNU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DDE, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION,
THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA 682030.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DEO, IRINJALAKKUDA THRISSUR- 680121.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
WP(C) NO. 36694 OF 2022 2
OFFICE OF THE AEO, MALA THRISSUR-680732.
6 THE CHAIRMAN & CORPORATE MANAGER
CENTRAL BOARD OF ANGLO-INDIAN EDUCATION, PERUMANOOR,
KOCHI-679536.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.M FAISAL - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 36694 OF 2022 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36694 of 2022
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2023
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i) "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing Ext P5.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to promote the
petitioner as Headmistress in LAIUPS Kadukutty w.e.f
1.4.2022 and approve the same.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the official respondents to grant
all service benefits treating the petitioner has been promoted
as Headmistress w.e.f 1.4.2022
iv) Petitioners may be permitted to dispense with the filing
of translation of vernacular documents.
And
ii) Such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the
case." [SIC]
2. The petitioner is working as LPST in LAIUPS,
Kadukutty, an school under the management of Central Board of
Anglo-Indian Education schools. According to the petitioner, she
is fully qualified to be promoted as Headmistress. As per Ext.P1
common seniority list of UPST & LPST of the schools under the
Central Board of Anglo-Indian Education Schools, the petitioner
is Sl.No.26. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Smt.
Treesa Been Luiz, Sl.No.25 has already been promoted as
Headmistress. Therefore, the next teacher to be promoted as
Headmistress in the UP/LP School under the Central Board of
Anglo-Indian Education School, is the petitioner. A vacancy of
HM arose in LAIUPS Kadukutty on 01.04.2022, consequent to
the retirement of Smt. Cladin Dcruz. The petitioner being the
senior most qualified teacher is to be promoted as HM with
effect from 01.04.2022, is the contention raised by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the 3 rd respondent is now acting
as the Manager of the School due to the disqualification of the
Corporate Manager. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted
Ext.P4 representation before the 3rd respondent on 01.04.2022
itself. When there was delay in considering the same, the
petitioner approached this Court and pursuant to the direction,
the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 order rejecting the claim of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. It is an admitted fact that the 3 rd respondent is now
acting as the Manager of the School because of the
disqualification of the former Manager. The only reason
mentioned in Ext.P5 to deny promotion to the petitioner is that
the senior of the petitioner namely Smt.Della Perera even
though submitted a relinquishment, the same is not seen
accepted by the Asst. Educational Officer, Mala. Therefore, the
petitioner's application for promotion cannot be considered. It is
also submitted by the petitioner that there are 4 more vacancies
in the schools under the same educational agency. Hence,
Ext.P5 is unsustainable is the contention. If that is the case,
there can be a direction to the 5th respondent to take appropriate
steps within a short time based on the relinquishment submitted
by Smt. Della Perera and based on the same, consequential order
can be passed by the 4 th respondent. The Government Pleader
based on instructions submitted that the 3rd respondent is only an
ex-officio manager and promotion cannot be effected by
him. He also submitted that, Smt.Della Perera has not submitted
relinquishment. These two contentions according to me, will not
stand. As far as the submission that Smt.Della Perera has not
submitted relinquishment is contrary to the statement in Ext.P5.
In Ext.P5, it is specifically stated like this :
"സ ന ല ബ ര ഓഫ ആ ബ ഇന ന മ ബ ജസമന സ 1/1/2014
പക രമള ബ! ര റ സ പക ര വടത HFEUPS സ ശ മത .
ല സ)ബരര, LPST ശ മത . ! ബ* ഡ ഗ സ ക ള !ര
ആ! ക ണന എന എന ല ട ! ര സ4ഡ സസ )ദവ ബവസ9ന
അ* ! ച വ ദ ഭ ഉ) !*കരക എഴത ! കത മരA ച ട9
എങ ല ആ!ത വകA അ ഗ കര ചത ! ക ണന ല എന ഉ)ജ ല
വദ ഭ ആഫ ര മ ള, ജ ല വ ദ ഭ ആഫ ര, ഇര ങ കട
എന വര അ* ! ച. ശ മത . ല സ)ബരരയസട * ക ഷസമന* വകA
അ ഗ കര കന മ*ക മ തബമ ശ മത . ! ബ* ഡ ഗ ന
പധ ദ )ക !മ )ര ഗണ കവ ന ധ കകയള എന
ക ണന."
5. This will show that Smt.Della Perera already
submitted a relinquishment and the only contention is that no
consequential order is passed by the 5 th respondent in it.
Similarly, since the 3rd respondent is acting as the ex-officio
Manager, he can effect promotions, if there is no other legal
impediment. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents will
not stand.
Hence, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
(1) Ext.P5 is set aside.
(2) The 5th respondent is directed to consider the
relinquishments submitted by Smt.Della Perera and take
consequential steps in it, within two weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment and thereafter report
the same to the 3rd respondent within another three weeks.
(3) Once the report is received from the 5th respondent,
the 3rd respondent will take necessary steps to promote the
petitioner to the post of Headmistress, if there is no other
legal impediment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within one month from the date of receipt of the report
from the 5th respondent.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36694/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF COMMON
SENIORITY LIST OF UPSA LPSA PROVISIONALLY
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS 01.01.2014.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ID NO.91773#1#6
ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ON 15.02.2019.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ID.NO.91773#1#36
ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ON 15.02.2019.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
01.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DDEEKM/5265/2022-B1
DATED 31-10-2022.
