Full Judgment
WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 PETITIONERS: 1 MANAGER, VV UPS CHENNARA, CHENNARA P.O., CHENNARA - 676 501. RESIDING AT MAULANA HOUSE, P.O. KUTTAYI,
(VIA) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676562, REP.BY MOHAMMED YASEEN.P.P. 2 MUBEENA.C.T ARABIC TEACHER (JR), VV UPS CHENNARA, CHENNARA P.O., CHENNARA - 676 501. BY ADVS. M.A.FAYAZ C.B.ABHINAVA M.VISHNUPRIYA RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM, O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM-676 519. 4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TIRUR O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 101.
WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 2 5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TIRUR, O/O. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, TIRUR-676 101. SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 3
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner in the writ petition is the Manager of the V.V UP
School, Chennara. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher (Jr) with effect from 28.06.2018 in the Additional Division vacancy during the academic year 2018-19. The petitioners contend that the proposal for approval of the 2nd petitioner was rejected by the 5th respondent mainly on the ground that the Manager has not appointed a protected teacher in the additional vacancy by complying with the ratio of 1:1. The petitioners assert that challenging the said order issued by the 5th respondent, the 1st petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent. In the appeal so preferred, the manager undertook that he is prepared and willing to appoint protected teachers. The contention of the petitioners is that despite the filing of Ext.P3 appeal on 15.04.2020, no orders have been issued. The petitioners assert that while the matter was pending consideration as aforesaid, the 1st respondent has come up with Ext.P4 Government Order as per which directions have been issued to the Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the teachers appointed in additional division vacancies on condition that the manager submits an undertaking that he shall appoint an equal number of protected teachers. Reference is also made to clause 9 of
WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 4
Ext.P4 Government Order, which enables the Educational Officer to reconsider the rejected orders without waiting for any appellate/revisional order and to grant approval subject to the manager complying with the conditions in Ext.P4. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking a declaration that the 2nd petitioner is entitled to get the approval of her appointment with effect from 28.06.2018 and for ancillary reliefs.
2. I have heard Smt.M.Vishnupriya, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that if the proposal is resubmitted by the 1st petitioner before the AEO concerned and a declaration is submitted in tune with the Government Order, necessary orders can be passed in tune with the directions in Ext.P4.
3. I have considered the submissions advanced and gone through
the records. It appears that the proposal for approval of the 2nd petitioner has already been rejected by the AEO concerned. Challenging the said order, an appeal has been preferred, and it appears that the same has also been rejected. However, I find that Ext.P4 Government Order has been issued on 06.02.2021, as per which it has been directed that matters already rejected can be reconsidered, provided the manager complies with the condition in Ext.P4. As the manager asserts that he has no objection to filing appropriate
WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 5 declaration and acting in terms of Exhibit P4, necessary directions can be issued. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions.
1. The 1st petitioner shall resubmit the proposal for approval of the
appointment of the 2nd petitioner within a period of two weeks. If the proposal is resubmitted along with the declaration as stipulated in Ext. P4, notwithstanding the orders issued on Ext.P3, the matter shall be reconsidered by the AEO concerned.
2. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along
with the judgment before the concerned respondent to ensure compliance. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP WP(C) NO. 38635 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38635/2022 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.06.2018. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/4555/18/D.DIS DATED 29.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.04.2020. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.4/2021/G.EDN DATED 06.02.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
NO.D.DIS/C/43619/2022 DATED 23.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL