Kerala High Court
Mariamma Jose vs The State Of Kerala
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/8TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 28568 of 2014 (U)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
MARIAMMA JOSE,
W/O.BENNY P.J, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAKATHANAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 538,
(HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) BIG HIGH SCHOOL,
PALLOM, KOTTAYAM).
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KURAVILANGAD - 686 507.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 001.
6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
7. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
CMS SCHOOLS, CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, CATHEDRAL ROAD,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 28568 of 2014 (U)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 27.06.05.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.1.06.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 25.6.07.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.9.07.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.08 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.10 PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.11 IN WPC 34604/08
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.2.14 IN WA 30/14 PASSED BY
THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.14 IN WPC 22377 OF 2013
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.14 IN WPC 13689 OF 2014
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.14 IN WPC 13167 OF 2014
PASSED BY THIS HONOURBALE COURT.
EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 9.6.08.
EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.08 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.8.09 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.8.14 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.10 THUS ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.11 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.6.
Msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 28568 of 2014 (U)
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 27.10.11 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.11
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.6.12 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT P21(a): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 4.6.12 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.7 AND APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANCHAL.
EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.7.13.
EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10.4.14 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.9.13.
EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 24.9.14 BEFORE
RESPONDENT NO.1 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msv/
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
----------------------------------
W.P. ) No. 28568 of 2014
----------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, initially appointed as UPSA and later as HSA, has been subjected to repeated appointments by transfer and repeated rejections of approval by the authorities.
3. Initially, the petitioner was appointed through Ext.P4 as UPSA in a regular vacancy in a school under the management of the 7th respondent Corporate Educational Agency. When the management sought approval of the said appointment, the 4th respondent rejected it through Ext.P5. W.P.(C.) No. 28568/2014 -2- Subsequently, both the appeal and the revision submitted by the 7th respondent stood rejected through Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively. The ground assigned was that the school was uneconomic and that only a protected teacher ought to have been appointed.
4. Later, the petitioner was appointed in a promotional vacancy as UPSA through Ext.P13 in another school under the management of the 7th respondent. When approval was sought, it was rejected by the District Educational Officer on the ground that the promotee did not have his promotion approved. Then, through Ext.P17, the petitioner was appointed yet again as UPSA in yet another school by the 7th respondent. Through Ext.P18, the approval was rejected by the 6th respondent and the said rejection was upheld by the 3rd respondent through Ext.P19, assigning the same reasons as was done in the earlier instance that the promottee did not have his promotion approved. When eventually the petitioner was appointed as UPSA in another school under the same management, the said appointment, W.P.(C.) No. 28568/2014 -3- however, was approved by the authorities through Ext.P20.
5. Later, through Ext.P21, the petitioner came to be appointed in the 5th school as UPSA. It too was approved through Ext.P21(a). While she was working in the said school, the petitioner was promoted as HSA and later shifted to a regular vacancy. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P25 revision before the 1st respondent seeking approval of her appointment on all occasions beginning from the first school to the last school where presently the petitioner is working in the promotional post of HSA. Complaining of non disposal of Ext.P25, the petitioner approached this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that Ext.P7 order in revision cannot be sustained, inasmuch as even in an uneconomic school, Rule 51(a) claimant can be appointed. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Exts. P8 to P21 judgments to buttress his claim that Rule 51(a) claimant could be appointed in an uneconomic school. At this juncture, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no W.P.(C.) No. 28568/2014 -4- dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner as Rule 51(a) claimant. Insofar as the second rejection is concerned, it was on the ground that the promottee did not have her promotion approved. As could be seen from the record, subsequently, the said promottee filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained Ext.P16 judgment, through which this Court directed the authorities to regularise her promotion. According to the learned counsel, there is no impediment for approving the second appointment of the petitioner, which was made through Ext.P13.
7. The learned counsel has also contended that even with regard to the third appointment through Ext.P17, that being a promotional vacancy, the promottee therein too approached this Court and obtained a judgment for the approval of her promotion. As such, there ought not to have been any further impediment in approving the appointment of the petitioner. Eventually, the learned counsel has contended that though the petitioner's appointments through Exts.P22 and P23 are against W.P.(C.) No. 28568/2014 -5- clear vacancies, they could not be approved by the authorities only on the premise that the earlier appointments were rejected. Under those circumstances, the petitioner, contends the learned counsel, invoked Rule 92 of KER and filed Ext.P25 revision.
8. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has initially contended that since all the earlier appointments were rejected and the rejections were also through separate orders, the petitioner ought to have filed individual revision petitions assailing each order. He has further submitted that since the petitioner has filed, subject to maintainability, a comprehensive revision under Rule 92 of KER, it may not be appropriate at this juncture for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P25 revision petition in accordance W.P.(C.) No. 28568/2014 -6- with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If desired, the first respondent may provide an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv