Kerala High Court
K.G. Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 1 November, 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940
WP(C).No. 10078 of 2018
PETITIONER :
K.G. SURESH KUMAR,
SON OF K.K GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
M H M A U P SCHOOL, VAVOOR, KIZHISSERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 645.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM 676 519.
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 532.
5. THE MANAGEER,
M H M A U P SCHOOL, VAVOOR,
KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 645.
6. THE HEADMASTER,
M H M A U P SCHOOL, VAVOOR,
KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 645.
R1-R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 10078 of 2018 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 01-11-1995 AND APPROVAL
THEREON
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 23-07-1996 AND APPROVAL
THEREON
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 23-07-2001 AND APPROVAL
THEREON
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIOENR DATED 01-06-2017
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B/1638/2017.K.DIS.DATED
20-09-2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)
NO.37622/2017-C DATED 22-11-2017
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS.B1/6488/2017
DATED 15-01-2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 30-01-2018
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL WISE SENIORITY LIST OF
RULES 51-A CLAIMANTS.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
31.3.2018
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.10078 of 2018
----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who had various spells of approved service in MHMA U.P.School, Kizhisseri, got reappointment as UPSA in that school on 01.06.2017. However, approval for the said appointment is declined by the 4th respondent Assistant Educational Officer stating that the school is a newly opened one and therefore, the vacancy has to be filled up by a protected teacher. Ext.P4 is the order of appointment and Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer declining approval. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the 5th respondent Manager filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer. The said appeal was ordered to be disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment of this Court dated 22.11.2017. Pursuant to the said judgment, the 3 rd respondent conducted a hearing and passed Ext.P7 order dated 15.01.2018 rejecting approval for the appointment of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved Ext.P8 revision petition before the Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of KER. The petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P5 and P7 and seeking a declaration that his reappointment as UPSA from 01.06.2017 is W.P.(C).No.10078 of 2018 2 liable to be approved. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on respondents 5 and 6 is dispensed with.
3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine the reliefs sought for in this writ petition as one directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 revision petition, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
4. Considering the fact that Ext.P8 revision petition is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the 1 st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 revision petition, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and also to respondents 5 and 6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
All legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised before the 1 st respondent at appropriate stage.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE AV/26/3