Kerala High Court
S.Lekshmi vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 664 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2023 IN WP(C) NO.34064 OF 2015
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
S.LEKSHMI
JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER, AGCM UP SCHOOL,
UPPUKANDOM, KOTHAMANGALAM,
AIROORPADAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 692.
BY ADV P.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ANNEXE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 014.
3 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
SCHOOLS OF THE EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE EAST,
IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKUALM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 545.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 661.
R.P. Nos.664 & 666 of 2023 :2:
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 661.
6 BIJI K.JACOB
W/O. SHOWN SCARIAH, KOCHUKUDY HOUSE,
KARIELY P.O, KOMBANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 544.
7 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KOTTAYAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.
8 THE HEAD MASTER
PEMH SCHOOL, THIRUVANCHOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 019.
9 THE HEADMISTRESS
AGCMUP SCHOOL, UPPUKANDAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 692.
R3 - SRI. ANOOP.V. NAIR
SRI. BIMAL K. NATH - SR. GP
TANOOSHA PAUL
ROHITH C.
AVANTHIKA R.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.09.2023, ALONG WITH RP.666/2023, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. Nos.664 & 666 of 2023 :3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 666 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2023 IN WP(C) NO.34076 OF 2015
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/7TH RESPONDENT:
S.LEKSHMI,
JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER, AGCM UP SCHOOL,
UPPUKANDOM, KOTHAMANGALAM,
AIROORPADAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 692.
BY ADV P.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:
1 BIJI K.JACOB,
W/O. SHON SCARIAH,
FORMERLY PART TIME JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER,
E.U.P.SCHOOL, KAYANAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 663
(RESIDING AT KANNOTH KUDIYIL,
AYIROORPADAM,
ERNAKULAM - 686 692).
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
R.P. Nos.664 & 666 of 2023 :4:
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
RE-DESIGNATED AS DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 014.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 691.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 661.
6 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
SCHOOLS OF THE EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF THE EAST,
IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKUALM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683 545.
7 THE HEADMISTRESS
E.U.P. SCHOOL, KAYANAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 661.
BY ADVS.
R1 - SRI. V.A.MOHAMMED
R6 - SRI. ANOOP.V. NAIR
SRI. BIMAL K. NATH - SR. GP
TANOOSHA PAUL
ROHITH C.
AVANTHIKA R.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.09.2023, ALONG WITH RP.664/2023, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. Nos.664 & 666 of 2023 :5:
ORDER
These review petitions are filed to review the
common judgment dated 22.05.2023 in W.P.(C) Nos.34064
& 34076 of 2015. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34064 of
2015 was the 7th respondent in W.P.(C) No.34076 of 2015.
R.P No. 664 of 2023 is filed by her against the judgment
in W.P.(C) No.34064 of 2015 and R.P No. 666 of 2023 is
filed by her against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34076 of
2015. In the judgment dated 22.05.2023, this Court
referred to the status of the parties and the exhibits, as
obtaining in W.P.(C) No.34064 of 2015. The status of the
parties and the exhibits herein will also be the same as in
the impugned common judgment.
2. The writ petitions were disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) Ext.P8 order to the extent it interfered with Ext.P1
order of appointment and directing the 6 th
respondent to be appointed as Full-Time Hindi
Teacher w.e.f 01.06.2005 cannot be sustained and
the same is set aside.
(ii) The Government is directed to consider Ext.P5
revision petition afresh confining the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction over Exts.P2 and P4 orders in
the light of the observations made above. The orders
in this regard shall be passed within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment
after hearing the petitioner, the 6 th respondent and
the corporate manager.
(iii) On the basis of the orders so passed, all service
benefits of the petitioner and the 6th respondent
including monitory benefits shall be worked out and
effected from the due date by the competent
authority within one month therefrom.
3. This Court, after upholding Ext.P1 order of
appointment of the petitioner and setting aside Ext.P8
order, directed the Government to consider Ext.P5
revision petition afresh confining the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction over Exts.P2 and P4 orders, namely,
the legality of creation of full-time post by converting
part-time posts, and to consider the rightful claimant to
the full-time post.
4. The review petitions are filed contending that
the prayer sought for by the 6 th respondent in Ext.P5
revision petition is for continuing at AGCM UP School,
Uppukandam and the petitioner has been posted as FT LG
Hindi Teacher by the Corporate Manager by order dated
15-07-2021 and there is sanctioned post of PT LG Hindi
teacher in both the schools and that both the teachers are
entitled to get full time benefits by virtue of GO (MS)
62/73/S.Edn dated 02.05.1973. It is, therefore, stated that
there is no necessity to examine the legality of creation of
full time post by converting part time posts in both the
schools and to examine who is the rightful claimant to the
post of FT LG Hindi Teacher. In light of the subsequent
development and the availability of the vacant post of PT
LG Hindi teacher at AGCM UP School, Uppukandam, it is
contended that the judgment is liable to be reviewed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
6. Though the Counsel for the Corporate Manager
sought time to place on record the proceedings adjusting
the lien of the petitioner and the 6th respondent, the same
was not produced. There is no dispute that there is
sanctioned post of PT LG Hindi teacher in both the
schools and that both the teachers are entitled to get full
time benefits. In view of subsequent developments, I find
that there is no necessity for the Government to consider
Ext.P5 revision petition and to examine the legality of
creation of full time post by converting part time posts in
both the schools and to examine who is the rightful
claimant to the post of FT LG Hindi Teacher. The
impugned judgment is, therefore, reviewed to the extent it
directs the Government to consider Ext.P5 revision
petition filed by the 6th respondent afresh in the light of
the observation, namely, the legality of creation of full
time post by converting part time posts, if necessary, and
to consider who is the rightful claimant to get FT LG
Hindi Teacher. In the light of the above, consequential
directions in the judgment based on orders to be passed
in Ext.P5 revision petition cannot survive. All other
findings and directions in the impugned judgment will
stand, except to the above extent. The Corporate Manager
shall issue orders to adjust the lien of the petitioner and
the 6th respondent, if not already issued, and the
competent among the respondents shall take steps to
approve the same and to disburse the arrears of salary
and all allowances due to the petitioner and the 6 th
respondent expeditiously.
The review petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SPR
