Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17569/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.C: MANAGER ST.IGNATIUS HIGHER SECONDAREY SCHOOL, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM - 682 315. BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENTS:
1 MILLY POULOSE AGED 39 YEARS D/O. M. I. POULOSE, NOW WORKING AS HSST PHYSICS, ST. IGNATIUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT RAMYA HOUSE, MUKKOTTIL TEMPLE ROAD, POONITHURA, KOCHI - 28. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 005. 4 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SRV SCHOOL BUILDING 3, SRV ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682 011. 5 SHEENA JOY D/O. P. C. JOY, PALATHADATHIL HOUSE, VADAVUCODE P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 310. SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking review of the
judgment of this Court dated 19.03.2021 in W.P.(C)
No.17569/2020, primarily with a contention that the directions therein cannot be implemented by the petitioner - Manager of the School on account of Annexure-1 interim
order of this Court in OP(C) No.446/2021
2. Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioner, submitted that Annexure-1 order had not been brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was disposed of and that there is an express interdiction ordered in it against making any appointment by the petitioner. He submitted that if the directions in the
judgment sought to be reviewed are implemented, his
client apprehends that it will be construed to be in contravention of Annexure-1 order of this Court.
3. In addition to the afore, Sri.N.Raghuraj then
submitted that the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein is not legally entitled to be appointed to the vacancy that arose on 01.05.2021, since she cannot claim any right under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. He, therefore, prayed that this review petition be allowed.
4. Sri.Benoy Thomas, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/1st respondent, in response, submitted that this review petition is not maintainable since it is based on a specific concession made by the petitioner - Manager before this Court, to appoint the writ petitioner to the vacancy which was to arise on 01.05.2021. He added that this review petition has been filed by the petitioner engaging a different counsel and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, on various occasions, declared that this cannot be done.
5. In response to the second contention raised by
Sri.N.Raghuraj, Sri.Benoy Thomas asserted that the contest regarding his client's entitlement to be appointed to the vacancy which arose on 01.05.2021 has not even been impelled in this petition and that what has been argued at the Bar is something which was not pursued by the Manager when the writ petition was disposed of or even at the time when the review petition was filed. He, therefore, prayed that this review petition be dismissed.
6. I have examined the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record.
7. From the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is
indubitable that the learned counsel for the petitioner - Manager had given an undertaking on behalf of his client that, since a vacancy was to arise in the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST) on 01.05.2021, he is willing to appoint the writ petitioner. There was absolutely no submission made with respect to the entitlement of the writ petitioner to be appointed so, when the writ petition was heard; and obviously, therefore, the review petitioner can impel this plea now. Moreover, I notice that even a close reading of the averments in this review petition does not reveal that the petitioner even whispers that the writ petitioner is not entitled to be appointed to the vacancy
that arose on 01.05.2021. I, therefore, see no cause to consider this contention on its merits.
8. As regards Sri.Raghuraj's submission that if the
directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed are implemented, it will be an affront to Annexure-1 order of this Court, I find no favour with it. This is because, in OPC from which Annexure-1 order arises, this Court was considering the entitlement of the rival parties to claim
managership of the School. It is in such context that Annexure 1 order has been issued directing that no appointments will be made in future, because there is subsisting conflict between rival parties on the question of managership of School. That said, however, in this case, the writ petitioner was continuing in the school for over 18 years and I have found that she was entitled to continue without break, which was offered to be accomplished by the Manager by accommodating her to the vacancy that was to arise on 01.05.2021. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can the writ petitioner be considered as a fresh appointee, since she has only been directed to be accommodated to the vacancy that arose pending this lis.
In the afore circumstances, I am firm in my mind that Annexure 1 would not be in any manner violated if the writ petitioner is appointed to the vacancy in the manner as ordered in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Resultantly, this review petition is closed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF RP 382/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2021 IN O.P.(C) NO.446 OF 2021 AND C.R.P. NO.81 OF 2021.