Kerala High Court
Sreedars K.R vs The State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 1 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SREEDARS K.R.,
AGED 31 YEARS
SON OF S. SUDHARANI (LATE), MENIAL,
KARIMPUZHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THOTTARA, P.O. KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-679 513
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 583
5 THE MANAGER,
KARIMPUZHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THOTTARA, KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-679 513
6 THE PRINCIPAL,
KARIMPUZHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THOTTARA, KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-679 513
7 THE VICE PRINCIPAL/HEADMASTER
KARIMPUZHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THOTTARA, KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-679 513
8 SRI. A. SASIKUMAR,
ARANGOTTIL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM,
SREE KRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
B.DEEPAK
NISHA BOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
WP(C) No. 31311 OF 2022
===================
Dated this the 1st day of March 2023
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers;
" i. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P6 and
set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of
certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding 4 th respondent to
grant approval to Exhibit P2 in implementation of Exhibit
P5 forthwith." (SIC)
2. Smt Sudharani, mother of the petitioner was HSA
(Hindi) in the School. She died on 08.05.2017, while in
service. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for
employment assistance vide Rule 51-B Chapter XIV-A read
with Rule 5-A Chapter XXIV-A and Rule 7, Chapter XXIV-B
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
KERS. It is a case of the petitioner that he was granted
appointment as Full Time Menial vide Ext. P2 order. It is the
case of the petitioner that, the approval to Exhibit P2 was
made to halt by the 8th respondent at the level of the
Government. Then, thereafter, the petitioner moved W.P.(C)
No. 24999/2020 before this Court. The 8th respondent also
approached this Court for approval of his appointment by
filing W.P.C) No. 16253/2020. As directed by this Court in
Exts. P3 and P4 Judgments, the Government passed Ext.P5
order dated 07.07.2021 holding that the petitioner is a Rule
51-B claimant and hence, his appointment is liable to be
approved. According to the petitioner, Ext. P5 was issued in
compliance with Ext. P4 Judgment as well. It is also the case
of the petitioner that, in Ext. P5, there is a specific finding
that there is no post to accommodate the 8 th respondent
when she was appointed. It is also the case of the petitioner
that, Ext.P5 was never challenged by the 8th respondent.
Thereafter, it is submitted that, the 8 th respondent obtained
Ext.P6 order dated 02.09.2021 for his approval even without
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
a post. It is the case of the petitioner that, the District
Educational Officer is now unable to grant approval to the
petitioner in compliance with Ext. P5, because of Ext.P6
order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel
appearing for the 8th respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
his contentions raised in this writ petition. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 is an order
in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, Ext. P6 order is
passed by the Government which according to the petitioner
is contradictory to Ext.P5. The learned counsel submitted
that copy of the Ext.P6 is not even communication to the
petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the 8th respondent submitted that, the petitioner is not
qualified for the post of FTM and she is not entitled to be
appointed in that post. The learned counsel for the 8 th
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
respondnet also submitted that, before passing Ext.P6, the
petitioner was heard. The learned counsel submitted that, in
Ext.P5, it is only stated that if the petitioner is qualified, he
should be appointed. According to him, the petitioner is not
qualified. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, if that is taken as a ground, the 8 th respondent is also
not qualified.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the 8 th
respondent also takes me through Ext.R8(g) government
order in which clause 17 deals with the qualification for the
post and the petitioner is not qualified for the same. The
learned counsel appearing for the 8 th respondent also
submitted that, the petitioner was appointed when there
was two sanctioned post and now there is only one post and
hence, the 8th respondent is entitled preference.
7. The learned Government Pleader supported the
impugned orders.
8. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the 8th respondent. Admittedly, there are two
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
orders of the Government in existence. Exts. P5 and P6 are
the orders. In Ext.P5 states that, if the petitioner is qualified,
he should be appointed as FTM. Ext.P6, it is stated that, if
the 8th respondent is qualified, he should be appointed as
FTM on humanitarian consideration. Admittedly, there is only
one post in this school. Ext.P6 is dated 02.09.2021 and
Ext.P5 is dated 07.07.2021. Even though Ext.P5 is referred in
Ext.P6, Ext.P5 is not set aside by the Government as per
Ext.P6. I am of the considered opinion that, who is qualified,
who is entitled for the post of FTM is to be decided by the
government afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and the 8 th respondent. To facilitate the
Government to pass fresh orders Ext.P6 can be set aside. All
the contentions of the petitioner and the 8 th respondent are
left open.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions;
i. Ext.P6 is set aside.
ii. The 1st respondent is directed to re consider the
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the 8th respondent, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iii. 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
LU
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31311/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 20.04.2018
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 13.07.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)
NO. 24999/2020 HATED 16.12.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)
NO. 16253/2020 MATED 10.08.2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT.) NO.
3291/2021/G.EDN. DATED 7.07.2021 OF THE
GOVT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT.) NO.
3872/2021/G.EDN. DATED 2.09.2021 OF THE
GOVT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2009 (3) KHC 596 ANILKUMAR P. V STATE
OF KERALA AND OTHERS DECIDED ON
23.07.2009
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT-R8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT, DATED
2.9.2015.
EXHIBIT-R8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 29.12.2018,WITH
TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT-R8(C) TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER,
DATED 13.4.2016.
EXHIBIT-R8(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B3/
2218/2019 BETWEEN THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED
9.7.2019.WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT-R8(E) TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED
WP(C) NO. 31311 OF 2022
17.12.2020.WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT-R8(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER NO.A3/3310/
2020 T.T. OBTAINED FROM THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DATED
12.1.2021.WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT-R8(G) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.12/99/P AND ARD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED
24.5.1999.
EXHIBIT-R8(H) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.S2/237/2020/ P
AND ARD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT,
DATED 18.12.2020.WITH TRANSLATION.
// True Copy // PA To Judge
