Kerala High Court
Sophy John vs The Director Of Public Instructions on 11 April, 2024
WP(C) NO. 32783 OF 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 32783 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
SOPHY JOHN, AGED 62 YEARS
W/O JOHN (LATE),RESIDING AT PARATHARA THEKKETHIL,
NJAKKANAL PO, KRISHNAPURAM 690533
BY ADVS.
A.JAYASANKAR
MANU GOVIND
ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
S.SABARINADH
RAHUL SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHI,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014
2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KAYAMKULAM 690502
3 THE KRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
OFFICE OF KRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SEVAGRAM-
KAPPIL-KUTIPURAM ROAD, KRISHNAPURAM 690533,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 MANOVIKAS KENDRA,
WARD NO.10, KRISHNAPURAM P.O.-690533, REPRESENTED
BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
BY ADVS.
VINCENT JOSEPH
SRI.V.BOBAN
SRI.BIMAL.K.NATH, SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32783 OF 2018 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024.
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, who claims
that she is working as a Cook in the Mid-day Meal Scheme of the 4 th
respondent. However, on 31.8.2018 the 3 rd respondent removed the
petitioner from her service. When the petitioner approached the 2 nd
respondent by Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent did not approve the
said action. It is for implementing the order of the 2 nd respondent, the
present writ petition has been filed. The 2 nd respondent has filed a
counter affidavit. In which it is stated as thus:
"3. It is submitted that the conditions of the
employment of a cook in mid day meal scheme are
governed by the circular (Exhibit P1) issued by the 1st
respondent. As such the power for appointment/dismissal of
cook is vested on the noon meal committee of the school
(Clause h, I & J of page No. 4 of the Exhibit P1). The
committee shall take such a decision only in the presence of
the Assistant Educational Officer or Noon Meal Officer and
3/4th of the committee members shall be present in the
committee. But the Secretary, Krishnapuram Grama
Panchayath issued an order on 22.09.2018, dismissing the
petitioner from service which does not obey the guidelines
of the Exhibit P1.
4. The dismissal order issued by the 3rd respondent
was not accepted by this respondent as it has violated all
the procedures in the guidelines on Exhibit P1. The
conditions of the employment of a cook in mid day meal
scheme is governed by the guidelines of Exhibit P1. As such
this respondent has directed the 4th respondent to permit the
petitioner to continue in service."
2. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit in which the
order impugned has sought to be sustained.
3. I have heard Smt.Parvathy Menon, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
4. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the
Bar. Indisputedly, by Ext.P3 order the 2 nd respondent refused to
approve the action of the Panchayath. Ext.P3 has been passed on
22.9.2018. It appears that Ext.P3 has not been challenged in any
proceedings so far and therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that the 3rd and 4th respondents has to be necessarily implement Ext.P3
order.
5. In addition to the above, when the Writ Petition came up
for consideration on 9.10.2018, this Court passed the following order:
"Notice before admission by speed post to respondents 3
and 4. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for
respondents 1 and 2.
If the petitioner is in service as on today, she shall be
permitted to continue until further orders and the Principal
shall ensure that Ext.P3 order is implemented in its full spirit."
6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to implement Ext.P3 order and
consequently the order passed on 9.10.2018 is made absolute.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ab
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32783/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO
N.M.A1/37000/2018/DP1 DATED 30.5.2018
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER
NO K3-4304/2018 DATED 31.8.2018 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO A-
1037/2018 DATED 22.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
