Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Beegam Farsana.S vs State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT:

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

           TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/11TH BHADRA, 1936

                                WP(C).No. 1822 of 2014 (C)
                                   ---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------

           BEEGAM FARSANA.S
           D/O. HABEEB RAHUMAN, FOUSIA MANZIL, KADAKKAD
           PANDALAM P.O.
           PATHANAMTHITTA (LOWER GRADE FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER)
           CMS LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KOLLAKADAVU)

           BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

       1. 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
           JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

       3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           MAVELIKKARA - 690 101.

       4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           CHENGANNUR - 689 121.

       5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER
           CMS SCHOOLS, CSI DIOCESAN OFFICE, CATHEDRAL ROAD
           KOTTAYAM -686 001.

       6. THE HEADMASTER
           CMS LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KOLLAKADAVU - 690 509.

           R1 -R 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAFEEK.V.K.

           THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
           02-09-2014,        THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
           FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 1822 of 2014 (C)
---------------------------


                                         APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-------------------------------------


EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 21/09/2011

ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5

EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/10/2011 PASSED BY

RESPONDENT NO.4

EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12/10/20006

EXHIBIT-P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 18/05/2007

EXHIBIT-P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27/03/2012 PASSED

BY RESPONDENT NO.3

EXHIBIT-P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION PETITION DATED

16/08/2012 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 UNDER RULE 8A CHAPTER XIVA

KER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2.

EXHIBIT-P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 01/10/2011

EXHIBIT-P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATRED 06/06/2012.

EXHIBIT-P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 10/09/2012.

EXHIBIT-P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 10/05/2012.

EXHIBIT-P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2013 PASSED BY

RESPONDENT NO.2

EXHIBIT-P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 11/03/2013

SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1

EXHIBIT-P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION PETITION DATED

06/05/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1

EXHIBIT-P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED

01/08/2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5

W.P.(C).NO.1822/2014




EXHIBIT-P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/05/2013 IN W.P(C)

12926/2013.

EXHIBIT-P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.

16726/S1/13/G.EDN. DATED 25/09/2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1

EXHIBIT-P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO. G/3129/2012 DATED

10/10/2013 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2

EXHIBIT-P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2013 PASSED BY

RESPONDENT NO.1

EXHIBIT-P19 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/12/2013

SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO.21 (EXCLUDING ANNEXURES)




RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL




                          //TRUE COPY//




                          P.S. TO JUDGE



               A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                      -------------------------------
                 W.P.(C).NO.1822 OF 2014 (C)
                    -----------------------------------
          Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2014

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Grade Full Time Arabic Teacher in C.M.S. Lower Primary School, Kollakadavu in a regular retirement vacancy with effect from 22.9.2011. Her appointment however was not approved by the 4th respondent, who, by Ext.P2 order dated 19.10.2011, rejected the request for approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the School was an uneconomic School, and, therefore, by virtue of Exts.P3 and P4 orders of the Government, no fresh appointments could be made in the said School. Against Ext.P2 order of the 4th respondent, the Manager of the School preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The said appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order dated 27.3.2012. Against the said order, the Manager preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instructions. By Ext.P11 order dated 6.2.2013, the 2nd respondent, while denying the approval for a regular appointment as Arabic teacher, approved the appointment of the petitioner on daily wages basis for the period from 22.9.2011 till 31.3.2012. This decision of the 2nd respondent was based on Ext.P10 W.P.(C).No.1822/2014 2 Circular of the Government which clarified that in uneconomic Schools, when appointments were made to vacancies that arose to sanctioned posts, such appointments could only be on daily wage basis. Aggrieved by Ext.P11 order to the extent that it confined the approval on daily wage basis only for the period from 22.9.2011 to 31.3.2012, the Manager preferred a further revision petition before the 1st respondent. The petitioner also preferred a separate revision petition before the 1st respondent. Both the revision petitions were considered together by the 1st respondent, who proceeded to pass Ext.P18 order dated 27.11.2013. By the said order, the 1st respondent modified Ext.P11 order of the 2nd respondent and held that the petitioner could be permitted to work on daily wage basis even for the period after 31.3.2012 for the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and considered for regular appointment and approval, subject to verification of the staff fixation orders for the said years. Pursuant to Ext.P18 order, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent through Ext.P19 representation which was preferred for the purposes of getting the directions in Ext.P18 order of the 1st respondent implemented. When no response was forthcoming from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court through the present W.P.(C).No.1822/2014 3 writ petition.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, wherein, the orders passed by the 1st respondent are sought to be justified for the reasons contained therein and with reference to the Government Orders that have been referred to in the said order.

3. I have heard Adv.Sri.S.Subhash Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri.Rafeek.V.K., learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I feel that the writ petition can be disposed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P19 representation preferred before him by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall take note of the fact that Ext.P19 representation has been preferred so as to give effect to Ext.P11 order, as modified by Ext.P18 order of the 1st respondent. The consideration by the 2nd respondent shall be for the purposes of ascertaining whether the petitioner can be appointed to a regular W.P.(C).No.1822/2014 4 sanctioned post that can be justified on the basis of the staff fixation orders for the years commencing from 2010-11 onwards. In making this enquiry, the 2nd respondent shall be guided by Exts.P16 and P17 correspondence which indicates the number of periods for Arabic, as well as the total number of students in the School, for the years 2010- 11 to 2013-14. The 2nd respondent shall also consider Ext.P14 order that was passed in a case similar to that of the petitioner, and pertaining to a teacher in an uneconomic School who was given the benefit of Ext.P10 Government Order. The 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P19 representation as aforesaid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before passing the order as directed, the 2nd respondent shall also afford the petitioner and the Manager of the School an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

The writ petition is disposed as above.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp