Chandrika.S vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 635 Ker

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023              1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023


PETITIONER/S:

          CHANDRIKA.S
          HSST (COMMERCE)
          NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VECHOOR,
          THALAYAZHAM,
          KOTTAYAM , PIN - 686607

          BY ADVS.
          M.A.FAYAZ
          M.VISHNUPRIYA
          C.B.ABHINAVA
          R.MURALEEKRISHNAN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

    2     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
          OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
          JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

    3     REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
          EDUCATION
          O/O THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
          EDUCATION, VAYASKAKUNNU, KOTTAYAM - 686001

    4     GENERAL MANAGER & INSPECTOR OF NSS SCHOOLS
          PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERRY , PIN - 686102
 WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023                 2




             BY ADV SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   12.01.2023,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2023                      3



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims that after following and constituting a proper

selection procedure, she and ten other teachers were chosen as HSSTs

(Junior) Commerce. On October 1, 2005, all of the teachers were given

appointments, with the petitioner being listed as 10th in the rank list.

2. According to the petitioner, going by Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A of

the Kerala Education Rule, the petitioner was the senior most among the 11

teachers.

3. The petitioner states that when vacancies in HSST (Junior)

Commerce arose under the management, many of the juniors of the

petitioners were granted promotions. The petitioner came to realize that the

seniority of the teachers appointed on 01.10.2005 was based on the rank

given at the time of selection and not on the basis of the date of birth

prescribed. The petitioner asserts that the classification of seniority in the

manner above is illegal. The petitioner would refer to Ext.P7 and specifically

to the order dated 28.02.2020 Acd.A3/107134/2018/HSE to substantiate her

contention. It is on these assertions that the petitioner has approached this

Court seeking the following reliefs:

(i) To call for the records leading to issuance of Exts.P5 order of the 2nd

respondents, and set aside the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.

(ii) To declare that petitioner being the senior most teacher among the HSST

(Jr) Commerce appointed w.e.f.01.10.2005 by the 4th respondent

petitioner is to be treated as the senior most among the 11 HSST (Jr)

Commerce teachers in accordance with Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A KER.

(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P6 Revision Petition forthwith or within a time frame

to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) To direct the respondents 1 to 3 to sanction and disburse the pension and

other terminal benefits due to the petitioner by reckoning that petitioner

was promoted as HSST (Jr) Commerce from the year 2009 onwards.

4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri. Fayaz, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the

pendency Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1st respondent, the petitioner

would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider the

same and pass orders expeditiously as the petitioner is due to attain

superannuation on 31.03.2023.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the

assertion made by the petitioner by relying on Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A of the

Kerala Education Rule cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by this

Court in Girija Kumar S. and Another v. Rajith K.G. and Ors. [2019 (4)

KLT 315], wherein it was held that there is no Rule available in Chapter XXXII

as is there in Chapter XIVA, which prescribes age to be reckoned for the

purpose of fixing seniority among persons who are appointed on the very

same day. It is however submitted that the learned Government Pleader has

no objection in issuing directions to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 in

accordance with the law.

6. In response, Sri. M.A. Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned

Government Pleader would have no application in the facts and circumstances

of the instant case. As the limited request of the petitioner is for consideration

of Ext. P6, in accordance with law, necessary directions can be issued.

7. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, no

prejudice would be caused to the 4th respondent if notice is dispensed with.

8. 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 at

the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on Ext.P6

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorized representative

and the 4th respondent.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within 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 NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1061/2023

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.TRO/7/4712/06 HSE DATED 02.08.06 ISSUED BY THE RDD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACD.A3/86270/ 2017/HSE DATED 06.02.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A5/4669/2019/RDD/HSE/KTM DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.02.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.B4/197777/ 2021/HSE DATED 03.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.12.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/879/2021 DATED 02.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT GENERAL MANAGER RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL