Kerala High Court
Aneesh E. S vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 507
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
1
WPC 15892 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.15892 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER/S:
ANEESH E. S., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, UPSA, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
IRUMBAKASSERY, PALAKKAD - 679 533, RESIDING AT
ELIYAPRA CHATHANNUR, THIRUMITTACODE, PALAKKAD - 676
535.
BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THRITHALA SUB DISTRICT, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679
534.
6 THE HEADMISTRESS ,AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
IRUMBAKASSERY, PALAKKAD - 679 533.
7 THE MANAGER
AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, IRUMBAKASSERY, PALAKKAD
- 679 533.
GP--NISHA BOSE (SR) .
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WPC 15892 OF 2020
C.S.DIAS, J.
======================
WP(C) No.15892 of 2020
======================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2020.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as UPSA by Ext P1, against a substantive vacancy which occurred due to retirement of a Teacher, in the seventh respondent School.
2. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent rejected the approval of appointment of the petitioner stating that no vacancy of UPSA has arisen, and what had arisen was the vacancy of the post of LPSA and that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of LPSA. The petitioner had preferred revision petition before the second respondent challenging Ext P3 order. The second respondent issued Ext P6 order directing the fifth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner. However, the fifth respondent has not taken any action on Ext P6. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the fifth 3 WPC 15892 OF 2020 respondent to implement Ext P6.
3. The petitioner laments that proposal is kept pending indefinitely by the respective respondents, on the specious plea that the icon of the Samanwaya software, which is used for granting approval of appointments has become dysfunctional.
4. The petitioner has averred that, approval of appointments are governed by the Kerala Education Act and the Rules formulated thereunder. Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules make it obligatory on the part of the Educational Authority to consider an application for approval, not later than 30 days from the date receipt of the appointment order and the requisite documents.
5. The petitioner has contended that software was introduced only for the purpose of expeditious disposal of cases for approval of appointments in aided school, but now the software is being used as tool to procrastinate approval of appointments within the mandatory statutory time period. Hence the petitioner, inter alia, seeks for a direction to the 4 WPC 15892 OF 2020 respondents to approve the appointment and grant him the arrears of salary forthwith.
6. Heard Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application for approval of appointment is pending consideration before the respondents from June, 2019 onwards. The sole intention of the respondents is to delay the approval of the appointment, which is unjust and arbitrary. The respondents are deliberately not taking steps to rectify the software. The respondents 1 to 5 can normally process the application. The inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 5 is causing severe hardship and difficulties to the petitioner.
8. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, on instructions, argued that the software was installed in all the Educational Offices in the State in order to infuse uniformity and expedite appointments. Unfortunately, a technical snag has made the software dysfunctional, but 5 WPC 15892 OF 2020 earnest measures are being made to restore the software. This is the sole reason that appointment could not be approved. Nevertheless, the respondents 1 to 5 will take a decision on the application for approval of appointment within a period of one month from today. The writ petition can be disposed of on the above said undertaking.
9. Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules reads thus:
The Educational Officer on receipt of the appointment order and other records mentioned in sub-rule(1) may approve the appointment if it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and orders issued by the Government or the Director from time to time. After approval one copy shall be forwarded by the Educational Officer to the teacher through the Manager and another copy forwarded to the Manager to be filled in the school records. The approval may be given as expeditiously as possible (at any rate not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the appointment order and other documents mentioned in sub-rule (1).6
WPC 15892 OF 2020
10. The above Rule makes it mandatory for the respondents 1 to 5 to consider an application for approval of an appointment within a period of not less than 30 days from the date of the appointment order.
11. It is undisputed by the respondents 1 to 5, that the application for approval of the petitioner was received by them as early as in June, 2019 and the second respondent by Ext P6 ordering the fifth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner. The plea of the respondents 1 to 5 that the software got dysfunctional, which precluded them from processing the appointment does not appeal to this Court or inspires confidence. Whether the software is functional or not, is an internal arrangement of the respondents 1 to 5. The software which was developed for the expeditious consideration of appointments, cannot be used as a defence to bye-pass the statutory mandate under Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIV of KER. The respondents 1 to 5 are strictly bound to adhere to time frame fixed in the statute, in view of the language used in the Rule.
7WPC 15892 OF 2020
12. In the result, I allow this writ petition, in view of the mandate under Rule 8(2) of Chapter XIV of the Rules and by recording the undertaking of the learned Senior Government Pleader, on the basis of the undertaking made by the respondents 1 to 5, that they shall approve the appointment of the petitioner within a period of one month from today. The respondents 1 to 5 are also directed to pay the entire arrears of salary due to the petitioner in three equated installments within a period of three months from today.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
SKS/13.8.2020 JUDGE
8
WPC 15892 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
6.6.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
1.4.2019 ISSUED TO SMT. RAJESWARI AS H. M. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP 8827/2001 DATED 12.06.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 33772/19 DATED 11.12.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.