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.

Ajitha A. Vs. the Assistant Educational Officer, Shoranur

Ajitha A. vs The Assistant Educational Officer, Shoranur

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 24, 2014
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1133335

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

Ajitha A.

Respondent

The Assistant Educational Officer, Shoranur

Excerpt

.....to be re-fixed on daily wage w.p.(c) no.5365/2014 -3- basis and the excess amount has to be realised. it is challenging ext.p9 that this writ petition is filed.2. contention of the petitioner is that the findings contained in the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the legal position remaining settled through unninarayanan's case cited above. since ext.p8 government order was already quashed by this court the reasoning mentioned in ext.p9 is not sustainable.3. having considered the factual situation, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the government to invoke revisional remedy against ext.p9. if any approach is made by the petitioner it is for the government to consider the matter in view of the legal position remaining settled and to take a final decision.4. under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit revision petition before the government against ext.p9, along with certified copy of this judgment, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. if w.p.(c) no.5365/2014 -4- any such revision petition is received by the government, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and others concerned. the revision petition shall be disposed of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of its receipt.5. till such time the government disposes the revision petition as directed above, recovery of any amount from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to ext.p9 shall be kept in abeyance. sd/- c.k. abdul rehim, judge. amg true copy p.a to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE24H DAY OF FEBRUARY20145TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 5363 of 2014 (U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- AJITHA A., LOWER GRADE SANSKRIT TEACHER, AIDED U.P.SCHOOL, CHALAVARA, P.O.CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678501.

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

4. THE HEADMASTER, AIDED U.P.SCHOOL, CHALAVARA, P.O.CHALAVARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679505. R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2402-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 5363 of 2014 (U) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER

ISSUED BY THE MANAGER IN FORM27TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF ORDER

OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORANUR DATED255.2009. P3: COPY OF ORDER

OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORANUR DATED266.2009. P4: COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER

, G.O.(P)56/11/G.EDN. DATED262.2011. P5: COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED149.2011 TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION. P6: COPY OF ORDER

OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED312.2011. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN WRIT PETITION (C)NO.1997 OF2012 P8: COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER

, G.O.(P)144/13/G.EDN. DATED224.2013. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORANUR, DATED71.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 5363 OF2014------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE24h DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher in the 4th respondent's school against a vacancy arose due to voluntary retirement of a regular teacher, with effect from 11-07-2008. But the appointment was not approved in view of G.O (P) No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10-06-2008. Later the issue was re-considered on the basis of decision of this court in Unninarayanan V. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT604 and the appointment of the petitioner was approved by virtue of Ext.P2, dated 25-05- 2009. But the educational authority had issued Ext.P3 on the basis of an interim stay granted by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed against Unninarayanan's case. Payment of salary and other benefits due to the petitioner was stopped from 5/2009 onwards. Eventhough Government issued G.O (P) No.56/2011/G.Edn dated 26-02-2011 W.P.(c) No.5365/2014 -2- clarifying that persons like the petitioner are entitled to get salary, the educational authority had denied payment, despite Ext.P5 representation. Even thereafter the Assistant Educational officer issued Ext.P6 denying the salary, which was challenged before this court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. In Ext.P7 judgment this court directed to disburse salary for the period from May 2009 upto 31-05- 2011, on daily wage basis. But the petitioner claims that the decision in Unninarayanan's case was finally upheld by the hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others V. Sneha Cheriyan and another (2013 (1) KHC660. By virtue of which persons like the petitioner became entitled to get the appointment approved on scale of pay basis. The Government thereafter issued Ext.P8 order which was subsequently set aside by this court. But the Assistant Educational Officer had now issued Ext.P9 order relying on Ext.P8, finding that the period of regular service approved from 11-07-2008 to 30-04-2009 is not in order and the salary for the said period has to be re-fixed on daily wage W.P.(c) No.5365/2014 -3- basis and the excess amount has to be realised. It is challenging Ext.P9 that this writ petition is filed.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that the findings contained in the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the legal position remaining settled through Unninarayanan's case cited above. Since Ext.P8 Government order was already quashed by this court the reasoning mentioned in Ext.P9 is not sustainable.

3. Having considered the factual situation, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the Government to invoke revisional remedy against Ext.P9. If any approach is made by the petitioner it is for the Government to consider the matter in view of the legal position remaining settled and to take a final decision.

4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit revision petition before the Government against Ext.P9, along with certified copy of this judgment, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If W.P.(c) No.5365/2014 -4- any such revision petition is received by the Government, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and others concerned. The revision petition shall be disposed of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of its receipt.

5. Till such time the Government disposes the revision petition as directed above, recovery of any amount from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial