Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

T. Ranjith Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

T. Ranjith Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1009452

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T. Ranjith Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....appointment order dt.30-7-2008. exhibit p2: true copy of the order no.k.dis/b4/6720/2009 dt. 30-3-2009 of 4th respondent. exhibit p3: true copy of the order no.k.dis/b2/1072/dt.5-11-2009 of 3rd respondent. exhibit p4: true copy of the appointment order dt.1-6-2010 of the petitioner. exhibit p5: true copy of the order no.k.dis/b4/4930/2010 dt. 28-5-2011 of 4th respondent. exhibit p6: true copy of the order no.k.dis.b2/18159/2011 dt. 23-9-2011 of 3rd respondent. exhibit p7: true copy of the circular no.60930/j2/11/g.edn.dt. 25-10-2011 of the government. exhibit p8: true copy of the revision petition filed before the government dt.22-11-2012. respondents' exhibits: nil /true copy/ p.a.to judge as p.r. ramachandra menon j.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w.p.(c) no. 31053 of 2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dated, this the 20th day of december, 2012 judgment non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner in different spells is the subject matter in the writ petition.2. the petitioner was appointed as upsa w.e.f. 30.07.2008 as per ext. p1 appointment order, which however was not approved by the 4th respondent/deo as borne by ext. p2 order. the stand taken by the deo is affirmed by the deputy director of education as well, vide ext. p3. while so, there arose an additional division vacancy of hsa (malayalam) to which post the petitioner was appointed as per ext. p4 order dated 01.06.2010. this was rejected by the 4th respondent/deo as per ext. p5 and it was confirmed by the 3rd respondent/dde vide ext. p6. the case of the petitioner is that, by virtue of ext. p7 circular, the petitioner is entitled to have the relief sought for and hence the petitioner has preferred ext. p8 revision petition, which is pending consideration before the first respondent. the learned w.p.(c) no. 31053 of 2012 :2. : counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent to have ext. p8 considered and finalized within a reasonable.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 31053 of 2012 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- T. RANJITH KUMAR, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR T., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321. BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.

5. THE MANAGER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321.

6. THE HEADMASTER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321. BY SMT.K.T.LILLY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS WP(C).No. 31053 of 2012 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.30-7-2008. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/B4/6720/2009 DT. 30-3-2009 OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/B2/1072/DT.5-11-2009 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.1-6-2010 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/B4/4930/2010 DT. 28-5-2011 OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.B2/18159/2011 DT. 23-9-2011 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN.DT. 25-10-2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DT.22-11-2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 31053 of 2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of December, 2012 JUDGMENT Non-approval of the appointment of the petitioner in different spells is the subject matter in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as UPSA w.e.f. 30.07.2008 as per Ext. P1 appointment order, which however was not approved by the 4th respondent/DEO as borne by Ext. P2 order. The stand taken by the DEO is affirmed by the Deputy Director of Education as well, vide Ext. P3. While so, there arose an additional division vacancy of HSA (Malayalam) to which post the petitioner was appointed as per Ext. P4 order dated 01.06.2010. This was rejected by the 4th respondent/DEO as per Ext. P5 and it was confirmed by the 3rd respondent/DDE vide Ext. P6. The case of the petitioner is that, by virtue of Ext. P7 Circular, the petitioner is entitled to have the relief sought for and hence the petitioner has preferred Ext. P8 revision petition, which is pending consideration before the first respondent. The learned W.P.(C) No. 31053 of 2012 :

2. : counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent to have Ext. P8 considered and finalized within a reasonable time.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. Considering the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P8 at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial