Kerala High Court
Jyothi.S vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
W.A. No.435 of 2025 1 2025:KER:20189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WA NO. 435 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.16172 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION :
JYOTHI.S
AGED 57 YEARS
TEACHER IN CHARGE OF HEAD MISTRESS,
RRV GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KILIMANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601, PIN - 695601
BY ADVS.
GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
MANU SRINATH
LIJO JOHN THAMPY
NIVEDITA MUCHILOTE
RIYAS M.B.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,
PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001,
PIN - 695001
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DEO, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036, PIN - 695036
W.A. No.435 of 2025 2 2025:KER:20189
4 MANAGER,
R.R.V.G.H.S.S., KILIMANNOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601,
PIN - 695601
5 N.K. VIJAYAN PILLAI,
HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
RRV GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KLIMANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601, PIN - 695601
6 SMT. THANKAMONY S,
HEADMISTRESS (RETIRED), RRVGHSS,
KILIMANOOR, RESIDING AT ELAYIDATHU.,
CHOOTTAYIL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601,
PIN - 695601
7 SMT. S.R. JALAJA,
HEAD MISTRESS (RETD), RRVGHSS, KILIMANOOR,
RESIDING AT MALACKAL HOUSE, PANAPPAM KUNNU,
MADAVOOR P.O, PIN-695 602, PIN - 695602
8 CHITHRA B.
H.S.A , RRV GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601,
PIN - 695601
9 USHA T.S.,
H.S.A, RRV BOYS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 601,
PIN - 695601
BY ADV. SRI. V K SHAMSUDHEEN, SR GP ,
BY ADV. SRI. V A MUHAMMED
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.435 of 2025 3 2025:KER:20189
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S., J.
This intra-court appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.1.2005
in W.P.(C) No.16172 of 2019.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as
follows:
The appellant contends that her claim for appointment as
Headmistress was rejected by the Government by Ext.P1 order when she
was illegally superseded by the 5th respondent. The writ petition
preferred by the appellant was earlier considered along with W.P.(C)
No.41740 of 2017 preferred by the 8th respondent herein. By a common
judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.21969 and 23363 of 2019 dated 21.1.2025,
Ext.P1 order, challenged by the respective parties, was set aside and the
matter was remanded back to the Government to notionally fix the
seniority/appointment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress. The
grievance of the appellant stems out of the fact that the learned Single
Judge, who considered the writ petition filed by the appellant separately,
did not assign any reason and relegated the matter back to the
Government for a denovo consideration. It is beyond dispute that the
findings in Ext.P1 order touching upon the interse claim of the parties
were not interfered by the learned Single Judge. However, the learned
Single Judge took the view that if the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21969 of
W.A. No.435 of 2025 4 2025:KER:20189
2019 was not eligible, the next question to be considered is who is the
next person to be eligible for appointment as Headmistress. Since the
issue involved was as regards the consideration of the interse claims, the
Single Bench thought it fit to remand the matter back to the Government
for fresh consideration. Consequently, when the present writ petition
also came up before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge
affirmed his view and relegated the petitioner back to the Government
after setting aside Ext.P1 order which found that the petitioner was not
eligible for appointment as Headmistress. It is aggrieved by the said
remand that the petitioner has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard Sri. George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned
Senior Government Pleader and Sri. V.A. Muhammed, the learned
counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar,
we find that inasmuch as the learned Single Judge had directed the
Government to reconsider the claim of the appellant in the light of the
findings rendered by him in the connected writ petitions, there is no
reason as to why the appellant should be aggrieved. We are further
informed by Sri. V.A. Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the
5th respondent that in pursuance to the directions of the learned Single
Judge in Annexure 1 judgment, the Government has already intimated
the parties the date of hearing as 26.3.2025. Inasmuch as the
W.A. No.435 of 2025 5 2025:KER:20189
Government has already taken steps for the purpose of implementing the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge, any decision by us on the
rival claims of the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent will certainly
affect the adjudication process before the Government. Therefore, we
are of the considered view that it is only appropriate that the appellant
be relegated before the Government in order to substantiate her claim
for appointment as Headmistress.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view
that no reasons are made out for interfering with the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal fails, and accordingly,
the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
W.A. No.435 of 2025 6 2025:KER:20189
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
21.01.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO. 21969/2019 AND
W.P.(C) NO. 23363/2019 OF THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT
