Kerala High Court
Arun V vs The State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2012
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/7TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 26413 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------
ARUN V.
S/O.R.VIJAYAN PILLAI, AMBAZHAVELIL HOUSE
EDAMATTOM P.O.
KOTTAYAM (LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT
KRISHNA VILASAM SOUTH (KVS) LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
ELANGULAM).
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), KOTTAYAM PIN - 686 001.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN - 686 507
5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN - 686 507.
6. THE MANAGER
KRISHNA VILASAM SOUTH (KVS) LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
ELANGULAM, NARIYANANI P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN - 686 001.
R1 TO 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOUSY A.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-10-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 26413 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------
EXT.P-1:TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.10.2012 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.6.
EXT.P-2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.G/7273/2012/K.DIS DATED
9.11.2012 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 REJECTING EXT.P1
APPOINTMENT ORDER.
EXT.P-3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/10110/2012/K.DIS DATED
31.12.2012 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXT.P-4:TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 10.5.2012.
EXT.P-5:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING B/460/2013 DATED
19.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE
OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXT.P-6:TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 5.2.2013 SUBMITTED BY
RESPONDENT NO.6 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXT.P-7:TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 28.2.2013 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXT.P-8:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2013 BEFORE
RESPONDENT NO.1 (EXCLUDING ANNEXURES).
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.26413 of 2013
-------------------------------
Dated 29th October, 2013
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non-approval of his appointment covered by Ext.P1 order. As per the same, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in KVS LP School, Elangulam by the 6th respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the said appointment was effected against a regular vacancy occurred on account of the abolition of shift system in the school. Aggrieved by the disinclination to approve the appointment the matter was finally taken up before the Government by the Manager, the 6th respondent through Ext.P6 revision petition. The petitioner too submitted a revision petition in that regard viz., Ext.P7. Taking note of the subsequent developments pending the said revision petitions the petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation as well, before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the delay in disposal of Exts.P6 to Ext.P8.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 6th respondent in this proceedings.
WP(C).No.26413/2013 2
3. As noticed hereinbefore, in the matter of denial of approval of appointment the 6th respondent - Manager and the petitioner have filed Exts.P6 and P7 revision petitions, respectively. In addition, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the first respondent the subsequent developments through Ext.P8 representation.
4. In the above circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions and claims of the petitioner this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7 revision petitions in accordance with law and also taking into consideration the contentions raised in Ext.P8 representation. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is only proper to consider the applicability of the decisions in Moosakutty v. DEO Wandoor (2009 (3) KLT 863), Nadeena v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 790) and State of Kerala v. Haseena & others (ILR 2013 (2) Kerala 108) during such consideration.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS