P.Jaya Vs. State of Kerala

P.Jaya vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 08, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1018255

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1018255
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice B.P.Ray
Decided On: Jul 08, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Jaya

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....quash exts.p2, p3, p6 and p7 orders; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropraite writ, direction or order directing the respondents to retain the petitioner as u.p.school assistant in the school of the 5th respondent, from 15-7-2002 onwards and for all consequential benefits including release of salary; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 7th respondent to allow the petitioner to sign in the attendance register. w.p.(c)no.13137 of 200.::2. ::3. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.4. learned government pleader submits that the denial of request of the petitioner by the government is in order. petitioner was not eligible to be retained in terms of 1:40 ratio during 2002-2003 as there was no sufficient pupil strength warranting an additional division and posts in terms of 1:40 for accommodating the petitioner.5. considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. writ petition is disposed of. b.p.ray, judge jes

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2013 17TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 13137 of 2006 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P. JAYA, U.P.SCHOOL ASSISTANT, PATTARYA SAMAJAM HIGH SCHOOL, PALLIPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.N.P.SAMUEL, SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA.

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

5. THE MANAGER, PATTARYA SAMAJAM HIGH SCHOOL, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

6. SRI.TONY JOSE, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, (ON ORDERS OF REVERSION AS UPSA), PATTARYA SAMAJAM HIGH SCHOOL, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

7. THE HEADMASTER, PATTARYA SAMAJAM HIGH SCHOOL, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.MAYA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 13137 of 2006 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.B3-4544/02 DATED 31 08/20023 ISSUED BY R4. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4712/04/G.EDN. DATED 30 10/2004 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.23122/2005/RA(1)/DPI DATED 12 07/2005 BY JT. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR R2. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.338/2004/G.EDN. DATED 10 11/2004 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1/J2/2005/G.EDN. DATED 27 01/2005 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-3468/04/D.DIS. DATED 18 01/2005 ISSUED BY R4. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.25262/H2/05/G.EDN. DATED 22 08/2005 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.4/05/G.EDN. DATED 04 01/2005 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 ON 15/11/2005. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11/J2/2005/G.EDN. DATED 02 05/2005 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.352/2000/G.EDN. DATED 25 10/2000 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.(RT) NO.1701/07/G.EDN. DATED 17 04/2007 ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rs. B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.13137 OF 200.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed primarily for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as U.P. School Assistant in the fifth respondent's school by retaining the sixth respondent as H.S.A. by applying the 1:40 ratio. Petitioner was first appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in a leave vacancy in the fifth respondent's school from 4-6-1999 to 14-10-1999 and as such she became Rule 51A claimant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P9 representation filed by the petitioner before the Government is pending consideration.

2. Being aggrieved by the illegal denial of salary to the petitioner from 15-7-2002 onwards, petitioner approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exts.P2, P3, P6 and P7 orders; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropraite writ, direction or order directing the respondents to retain the petitioner as U.P.School Assistant in the school of the 5th respondent, from 15-7-2002 onwards and for all consequential benefits including release of salary; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 7th respondent to allow the petitioner to sign in the Attendance Register. W.P.(C)No.13137 OF 200.::

2. ::

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the denial of request of the petitioner by the Government is in order. Petitioner was not eligible to be retained in terms of 1:40 ratio during 2002-2003 as there was no sufficient pupil strength warranting an additional division and posts in terms of 1:40 for accommodating the petitioner.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of. B.P.RAY, JUDGE jes

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties P.Jaya vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice B.P.Ray