Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (4.38 seconds)
Documents citing T.S.Nadeera vs The State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2011

Leena V A vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025

16. Apart from that, the appointment of a teacher in a school only recognises the obligation of the Manager to conduct the school in terms of the Statute, requirements of the students, and staff fixation. The primary concern is the welfare of the students, and therefore, unless a qualified hand is appointed, the Manager will not be able to conduct the school in a proper manner. This does not mean that he can wriggle out of the obligation regarding the appointment of a protected hand, but the system should not be stretched to the extent of denying approval of the appointment of a 2025:KER:7 W.P (C) No.2454 of 2021 12 qualified teacher, that too in vacancies like those herein, which arose due to retirement of qualified teachers {Vide: Nadeera T.S and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2011 (3) KHC 650]}.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Babu - Full Document

The Am Upper Primary School vs The State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... on 1 July, 2020

Exhibit P-1 True copy of the appointment order of the the 7th Respondent dated 01.06.2010 Exhibit P-2 True copy of the appointment order of the 8th Respondent dated 01.06.2010 Exhibit P-3 True copy of the appointment order of the 9th Respondent dated 01.06.2020 Exhibit P-4 True copy of the Judgment in Nadeera T. S. and another v. State of Kerala and Others [2011 (3) KHC 650] Exhibit P-5 True copy of the Order No.K.Dis. C/6022/2018 dated 02.05.2019 Exhibit P-6 True copy of the appointment order dated 06.06.2019 of Smt. Nidhin M. Exhibit P-7 True copy of the appointment order dated 06.06.2019 of Smt. Rahmathunneesa P. Exhibit P-8 True copy of the amendment made to the KER in Chapter XXI, Rule 7 KER, vide G.O.(P) No.3/2019/G.Edn. dated 28.02.2019 Exhibit P-9 True copy of the Circular No.J2/57/2019/G.Edn. dated 08.03.2019 Exhibit P-10 True copy of the Revision Petition dated 09.06.2020 filed by the Petitioner before the Government (without Exhibits) 6 WPC 13125 OF 2020
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

Sathi K vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2015

3. When the matter came up for admission on 21.05.2015, I had asked the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether Ext.P12 order of the 1st respondent was passed after hearing the 5th respondent Manager, who was the petitioner before the 1st respondent in the revision application. When the matter was taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader on instructions that, before the passing Ext.P12 order, the revision petitioner was not heard. Taking note of the submission of the learned Government pleader, I am of the view that Ext.P12 order of the 1st respondent cannot be legally sustained, inasmuch as it has been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice and without affording the revision petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Resultantly, I quash Ext.P12 order of the 1st respondent and direct the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition dated 28.11.2007 filed by the manager, together with Ext.P13 petition filed by the petitioner herein, and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner and the 5th respondent Manager, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of -3- W.P.(C). No. 14764 of 2015 this judgment. While passing orders as directed, the 1st respondent shall take note of the judgment of this court in Nadeera and another Vs. State of Kerala, referred to above.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

K.J.Manual Joseph Shan vs The State Of Kerala

9. Ext.P9 and P10 documents produced by the petitioner along with the reply affidavit would show that, as on the date of appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Physical Science), ie, as on W.P. (C.) No. 14464 of 2013 6 01.06.2010 there was no protected HSA (Malayalam) in Aluva Educational District to be appointed as against the vacancy reserved for protected hand. A protected hand (Full Time Menial) was made available to the 4th respondent Manager only on 04.12.2010, who joined duty on 04.12.2010.. The contention of respondents 1 to 3 that the appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Physical Science) against a regular vacancy can be approved only with effect from the date of joining of the protected hand is no more available in view of the law laid down by this Court in Nadeera T.S. v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 790] and affirmed by the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. S.Haseena and another [2013 (2) KHC 103]. The Division Bench held that, till 2009 there was no obligation on the part of the Manager of aided Schools to secure list of protected teachers. Therefore, if at all any obligation cast on the Managers of the Schools to secure the list of protected teacher, it commenced only in the year 2009 by circular dated 19.11.2009, which can have only prospective W.P. (C.) No. 14464 of 2013 7 effect and not retrospective effect. As per Rule 6 (viii) of Chapter V of KER, the only obligation cast on the Managers of the aided Schools is that, they must appoint the protected teachers, whenever a list is sent. Beyond that, there is no other obligation cast on them. SLP (C) Nos. 28504-05 of 2013 as well as review petition Nos. 347-48 of 2014 filed by the State before the Apex Court also ended in dismissal.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - A Narendran - Full Document

K. Fibina vs The State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2019

In my considered opinion, the fact situations considered in 'Nadeera' (supra) are similar in nature and the petitioner herein was appointed as L.P.S.A with effect from 01.06.2009. Therefore, the Government Order dated 19.11.2009, which was held to be having only prospective operation cannot militate against the appointment of the petitioner against a regular vacancy. Paragraphs 14 to 20 of the said judgment are relevant to the context, which read thus:
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next