The Manager Vs. the Director of Public Instructions

The Manager vs The Director of Public Instructions

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 01, 2014

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1119441

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/1119441
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar
Decided On: Jan 01, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Manager

Respondent

The Director of Public Instructions

Excerpt

.....of the petitioner that though the order of appointment was forwarded for approval it was rejected. in other words, according to the petitioner, the appointment of the third respondent as against the newly sanctioned post is yet to be approved. in fact, aggrieved by the refusal to approve the appointment of the third respondent the matter was taken up before the first respondent by the petitioner himself. subsequently, the first respondent remitted the question of approval to the second respondent and in the meanwhile, the petitioner took up the decision to withdraw the appointment of the third respondent and wp(c).no.31223/2013 2 submitted ext.p5 application in that regard. it is the contention of the petitioner that such request will lie in the light of the decision of this court in vijayamma v. state of kerala (ilr1982(1) kerala 795). in other words, according to the petitioner, it is legally permissible to seek for withdrawal of appointment prior to the approval of appointment and therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no reason for not entertaining ext.p5 by the first respondent. it is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed with the aforementioned prayer.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned government pleader.3. taking into account the fact that ext.p5 application is still pending before the first respondent and in view of the nature of the order i propose to pass in this writ petition i do not think it necessary to issue notice to the third respondent in this proceedings. i am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and reserving all rights to the third respondent to raise all her objections before the first respondent against ext.p5. in the said circumstances, this writ petition wp(c).no.31223/2013 3 is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider ext.p5 application.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE1T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 31223 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- THE MANAGER ST.CLARE ORAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF MANICKAMANGALAM P.O.(VIA) KALADY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574 BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALUVA - 683 101 3. SMT.NISHA RANJAN `NISHUS, POLICODU, VAYAKKAL P.O. VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 548 R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.LOWSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31223 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.B5-3878/11/K.DIS DATED82.2012 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B5/7628/12 DATED304.2012 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED176.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE2D RESPONDENT EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B5-4134/2013 DATED276.2013 BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.A2-2013 DATED127.2013 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE1T RESPONDENT EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B5/4415/2013/K.DIS DATED1810.2013 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.M5/55945/13/DPI DATED2211.2013 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.7/2013 DATED712.2013 TO THE2D RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.31223 of 2013 ------------------------------- Dated 1st January, 2014 JUDGMENT

The short prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application submitted by him seeking permission to withdraw the appointment already granted to the third respondent. The petitioner is the Manager of St.Clare Oral School for the Deaf, Manikkamangalam. The petitioner appointed the third respondent as Assistant Teacher on daily wage basis from 1.7.2010 to 31.3.2011 and that appointment was approved by the second respondent on 20.12.2010 against a newly sanctioned post. Subsequently, she was given reappointment as against that post on 1.6.2011. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the order of appointment was forwarded for approval it was rejected. In other words, according to the petitioner, the appointment of the third respondent as against the newly sanctioned post is yet to be approved. In fact, aggrieved by the refusal to approve the appointment of the third respondent the matter was taken up before the first respondent by the petitioner himself. Subsequently, the first respondent remitted the question of approval to the second respondent and in the meanwhile, the petitioner took up the decision to withdraw the appointment of the third respondent and WP(C).No.31223/2013 2 submitted Ext.P5 application in that regard. It is the contention of the petitioner that such request will lie in the light of the decision of this Court in Vijayamma v. State of Kerala (ILR1982(1) Kerala 795). In other words, according to the petitioner, it is legally permissible to seek for withdrawal of appointment prior to the approval of appointment and therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no reason for not entertaining Ext.P5 by the first respondent. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed with the aforementioned prayer.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Taking into account the fact that Ext.P5 application is still pending before the first respondent and in view of the nature of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the third respondent in this proceedings. I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and reserving all rights to the third respondent to raise all her objections before the first respondent against Ext.P5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition WP(C).No.31223/2013 3 is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with law. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that Ext.P5 application is posted for hearing on 3.1.2014. In the said circumstances, it will only be appropriate for the first respondent to conduct the hearing after affording an opportunity of being heard to the the third respondent as well, if not already offered, and pass appropriate orders thereon after such hearing in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of hearing. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties The Manager vs The Director of Public Instructions Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar