Kerala High Court
Anas.C.M vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/6TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 18903 of 2011 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
ANAS.C.M.,
CHEKIDANKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
P.O.PAINKANOOR, VIA. KUTTIPPURAM, PIN-679590,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676 505
5. THE MANAGER, M.M.L.P.SCHOOL, NELLISSERY,
P.O.SUKAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676 505
R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER
R5 BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID
SRI.K.P.MOHAMED SHAFI
SRI.T.P.SAJID
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 18903 of 2011 (K)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 11/02/2005
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2004 IN WPC.
NO.19464 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2007 IN
WPC.NO.19464/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 08/12/2009
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 08/12/2009
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED .12.2009
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(RT)NO.5656/2010/G.EDN.
DATED 18.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
**********************************************************************
W.P.(C) No.18903 of 2011
**********************************************************************
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as L.P.S.A in M.M.L.P.School, Nellissery coming under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Educational Officer, Edappal. The appointment was on 11.2.2005. The appointment was not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer stating that there was an interim direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19464 of 2004 not to approve any appointment made by then Manager. It was obvious that there was a dispute regarding the managership of the school. Ultimately, by the judgment of this Court in the above case dated 22.1.2007, directed the writ petitioner therein to invoke civil remedy and ordered as follows:
In the result, the writ petition fails, and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides. If the Civil Court passes any interim or final order regarding the election of the President, needless to say, the Assistant Educational Officer shall correspondingly modify the approval granted to the manager, to make the same in tune with the decision of the Civil Court. W.P.(C) No.18903 of 2011 2
2. In the meanwhile, the Manager as per the proceedings dated 8.12.2009 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The charge memo would disclose that the petitioner was on unauthorised leave from 13.7.2007 onwards. It appears that the petitioner took employment at abroad. Based on the charge memo, the petitioner was removed from the service. The petitioner challenged the removal by invoking the revisional remedy under the Kerala Education Act and Rules before the Government. The Government dismissed the same stating that the school is not coming under the KER and it was functioning under the Area Intensive Programme of the Central Government.
3. It is to be noted that it was the first time, the petitioner was told, the school is coming under the Area Intensive Programme and does not come under the KER. Anyway, if it is coming under the Area Intensive Programme, it does not come under the purview of the KER, this Court cannot hold to the contrary. There are two issues arises for consideration. The first one is with regard to the period during which the petitioner worked and the payment of salary to that period. The second is with regard to the removal of the petitioner from the service. W.P.(C) No.18903 of 2011 3
4. In regard to the admitted position, the petitioner worked from 11.2.2005 to 13.7.2007. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the above period. The Assistant Educational Officer, Edappal should conduct an enquiry whether the salary to be paid for the above period has been received by the Manager under the Area Intensive Programme, if so, he shall direct the Manager to pay the amount to the petitioner. If it is a matter coming under the KER, certainly, the petitioner if otherwise qualified, the Assistant Education Officer shall approve the appointment and ensure that the salary is paid to the petitioner. If it is coming under the Area Intensive Programme and the fund already lapsed and no more fund is available under the Area Intensive Programme, certainly, that is a responsibility of the Manager to pay the salary to the petitioner. The Assistant Educational Officer shall ensure that necessary directions are issued to the Manager to effect payment without any delay.
5. In regard to the question regarding disciplinary proceedings, certainly, it would depend upon the probe relating whether this school is coming under the Area Intensive Programme or under the KER. If it is coming under the KER, the W.P.(C) No.18903 of 2011 4 Assistant Educational Officer shall enquire into the validity of the removal from the service and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. If it does not come under the KER, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge it appropriate manner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as above, the Assistant Educational Officer shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner and the fifth respondent within a period of two months. To pave way for consideration as above, Ext.P10 Government Order is set aside.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln /True copy/ P.A. to Judge