Kerala High Court
Sindhu K.R vs State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 15405 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
SINDHU K.R.,H.S.A. ( HINDI)
S.N. TRUST HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PUNALIUR, KAKKADU PO, KOLLAM 691331
BY ADV SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURA 695 001
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOZHIKODE 673 001
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE 673001
5 THE MANAGER
S.N.TRUST SCHOOLS, KOLLAM 691 001
R5 BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - BIMAL K.NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.15405 of 2015
.................................................................
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 18.10.2005 to 04.06.2006 on regular basis and to pay the admitted monetary benefits. Petitioner submits that the reason stated by the authorities for not approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 05.06.2006 is that the said vacancy has to be filled up by a protected teacher.
2. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent Manager would submit that no list of protected teachers was supplied to the Manager by the authorities concerned. Petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cherian [2013 (5) SCC 160] the petitioner is entitled for approval of appointment from 18.10.2005 to 04.06.2006.
3. Learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that there is a long delay in approaching this Court inasmuch as the petitioner has approached only in 2015 seeking approval of appointment for the period from 18.10.2005 to 04.06.2006. Thereupon the petitioner submits that since proceedings were pending before the Apex Court, she was awaiting results of the same and the delay has caused only due to the same.
4. Whatever that be, if the issue involved in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of Sneha Cherian's case (Supra), I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the same. But it is for the petitioner to approach the 4th respondent by filing an appropriate representation in this regard and if such a request is made the same shall be considered and disposed of by the 4 th respondent after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as 5th respondent, taking into consideration the declaration of law by the Apex Court in Sneha Cherian's case (Supra) and a final decision in the matter shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the representation in this regard.
With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15405/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 5.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.19/09 DATED 9.2.2009