Kerala High Court
Nisha Renjan vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942
RP.No.1263 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 6322/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2019 IN WP(C) 6322/2016(M) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
NISHA RENJAN,
ASSISTANT TEACHER, ST.CLARE ORAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD)
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALUVA - 683 101.
3 SR.ANNIE VALLIPADAM,
MANAGER, ST.CLARE ORAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., KALADY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
4 HEADMISTRESS,
ST.CLARE ORAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O.,
KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
SRI RAVI KRISHNAN,
SMT. M U VIJAYALAKSHMI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No. 1263/2019 :2:
in W.P.(C) No. 6322/2016
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2020.
ORDER
The captioned review petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6322 of 2016 seeking to review the judgment dated 26.11.2019, whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order passed by the State Government under the Kerala Education Rules (KER) upholding the decision of the respondent management withdrawing the proposal put forth for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner claimed the benefits of Rules 43, 51A, and 51B of KER, the same was held to be not sustainable.
2. The contention put forth by the review petitioner in the review is that this Court has committed error by a finding entered in paragraph 2 of the judgment that the review petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in St. Clare Oral School for the Deaf, Kalady, Ernakulam District on daily wage basis from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 and in regular vacancy from 01.06.2011 to 18.06.2013 and the same is factually incorrect as can be seen from mere perusal of Exhibit P1 order. Yet another contention advanced is that the findings entered in paragraph 17 that the manager has challenged the order of the Director of Public Instructions and the R.P. No. 1263/2019 :3: in W.P.(C) No. 6322/2016 Government has interfered with the same and therefore, the proposition of law laid down in the said decision may not have much relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case, are factually incorrect. Accordingly, it is contended that in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 and from Exhibit R3(c) revision petition, it would be evident that there was no challenge against Exhibit P3 order and Exhibit R4 (c) revision was filed only against Exhibit P11 order. That apart, it is submitted that the judgment in Swayamprabha v. State of Kerala reported in [1981 KLT SN 93 (C. No. 166) relied on by the review petitioner to canvass the proposition that the power of aided school manager under Rule 48 of Chapter XIV-A of KER to terminate the service of a teacher before the expiry of the term of appointment was not appreciated by this court.
3. I have heard Sri. M.R. Anison learned counsel appeared the review petitioner, learned Government Pleader and Adv. Sri. Brijesh Mohan appeared for the management, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
4. So far as the contention put forth with respect to the service details contained in paragraph 2 of the judgment is concerned, it is purely based on the averments made by the petitioner in the synopsis of the writ petition and so also, other R.P. No. 1263/2019 :4: in W.P.(C) No. 6322/2016 documents produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition. That apart, the said factual entry contained in the judgment has no consequences at all against Exhibit P1 appointment order of the petitioner dated 01.06.2011, because nowhere in Exhibit P1 the other service details of the petitioner is entered. Therefore, if at all there is any mistake with respect to the said factual entries, the petitioner ought to have sought for necessary correction in the writ petition. Having not done so, I am of the considered opinion that, it is not an error apparent on the face of the record at all.
5. The findings contained in paragraph 17 are on the basis of the the findings contained in Exhibit P15 impugned order passed by the State Government. That apart, nowhere in paragraph 17 of the judgment, there is any finding with respect to the averments put forth in the review petition. The contents of paragraph 17 of the judgment is on account of the proposition of law laid down by this court in Jayasree v. Director of Public Instruction [2002 (2) KLT 346] and it is found that "so far as the judgment in 'Jayasree' (supra) is concerned, it was considering the question as to whether the managers are duty bound to obey the orders passed by the educational authority and it was held that the directions issued by the educational authorities are bound to be implemented by the manager. However, this is a case where the manager has R.P. No. 1263/2019 :5: in W.P.(C) No. 6322/2016 challenged the order of the Director of Public Instruction and the Government has interfered with the same and, therefore, the proposition of law laid down in the said decision may not have much relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case."
6. As pointed out above, the factual finding with respect to the challenge of the order by the manager was recorded by this court on the basis of the the finding contained in Exhibit P15 that the order of the Deputy Director is set aside and the manger is permitted to withdraw the proposal for appointment of the review petitioner by finalising the revision petition submitted by the manager. Therefore, In my considered opinion, the said finding is on the basis of the the findings contained in Exhibit P15 order passed by the Government. Curiously enough, such a finding made by the Government was not challenged at all in the writ petition by taking any specific ground. That apart, the judgment in Swayamprabha (supra) has no bearing to the facts of the case in the writ petition in question and it was accordingly that it was not taken into account while disposing of the writ petition. Thinking so, the relief sought on the basis of that precedent can only be deemed to be declined under law.
7. Assimilating the situations, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for the review of the judgment R.P. No. 1263/2019 :6: in W.P.(C) No. 6322/2016 specified above, since there are no grounds made out for interfering with the judgment in a review petition.
Needless to say, review fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv