Kerala High Court
Lekha K.G vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 19632 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
LEKHA K.G
AGED 42 YEARS
TRAINING SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL STUDIES) VKPM NSS
TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE, EDAMATTAM P.O KOTTAYAM 686578
RESIDING AT MADATHINAKATHU HOUSE, EDAMATTAM P.O, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686578
BY ADVS.
M.A.FAYAZ
M.VISHNUPRIYA
C.B.ABHINAVA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
O/O DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOTTAYAM
O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOTTAYAM KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686001
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALA
O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALA, PALA, PIN -
686604
5 MANAGER
VKPM NSS TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE, EDAMATTAM P.O
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686578
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 19632 of 2023
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
W.P.(C) No. 19632 of 2023
=============================================================
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
(i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th
respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as
TSA (SS) at 5th respondent school w.e.f. 01.06.2022
onwards.
(ii) To call for the records leading to the issuance of
Ext.P4 and P5 orders of the 4th and 3rd respondents as also
Ext.P8 letter of the 1st respondent and set aside the same by
issuance of writ of certiorari.
(iii) To declare that petitioner's appointment as Part Time
Menial w.e.f 01.11.2016 and its approval is perfectly in
order and in conformity with Ext.P6 Special Rules.
(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 revision
petition himself without remitting the same to the 2 nd
respondent within a time frame to be specified by this
Hon'ble Court.
(v) To direct the 4th respondent to sanction and disburse
salary to the petitioner in the scale of TSA (SS) w.e.f.
01.06.2022 onwards.
W.P.(C). No. 19632 of 2023
(vi) To dispense with the filing of translated copies of the
exhibits produced in the above writ petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Part-time Menial in
the 5th respondent's school in accordance with Ext.P6 Special
Rules and it was approved by Ext.P1 order, is the submission.
When a vacancy of Training School Assistant (Social Studies)
arose, the petitioner was promoted to the said post in accordance
with Rule 1(1) of Chapter XIV A K.E.R with effect from
01.06.2022, but it was rejected by the 4th respondent vide Ext.P4
order stating that the petitioner was over qualified. Exts.P4 and
P5 orders were challenged by filing Revision Petition under Rule
92 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R before the 1st respondent, as the
interpretation of applicability of Ext.P6 Rules and the power to
invoke Rule 3 of Chapter I KER can only be done by the first
respondent, is the submission. But the first respondent vide
Ext.P8 remitted the Revision to the 2nd respondent stating that the
Revision Petition was filed without invoking the appellate and
revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition.
W.P.(C). No. 19632 of 2023
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader also.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Revision
was filed before the first respondent because an interpretation of
the applicability of Ext.P6 Special Rules and the power to invoke
Rule 3 of Chapter I K.E.R is to be considered and that can be
considered only by the first respondent. In such circumstances,
the first respondent ought not have remitted the matter to the 2 nd
respondent, is the submission.
5. I think that there is some force in the argument. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. I think, the
Government itself should consider the Revision invoking the
power under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. Therefore, Ext.P8
can be set aside and there can be a direction to the first
respondent to consider Ext.P7 Revision in accordance with law.
W.P.(C). No. 19632 of 2023
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
(i). Ext.P8 is set aside.
(ii). The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass
appropriate orders in Ext.P7, after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner and 5th respondent, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
(iii). The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this
judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before
the 1st respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
shg
W.P.(C). No. 19632 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19632/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.11.2016
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF PAGE NUMBERS 15, 16, 17 AND 18 OF
PETITIONER'S SERVICE BOOK DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1/37104/2022 DATED
22.12.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/218591/2023 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PART TIME CONTINGENT
RULES DATED NIL
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2023
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.H2/79/2023/G.EDN DATED
06.05.2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DDEEKM/1739/2023-A2 BY
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONERNAKULAM DATED
24.05.2023
