Suja Simon Vs. D.P.i.Trivandrum. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1094503
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnSep-27-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
AppellantSuja Simon
RespondentD.P.i.Trivandrum.
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr. justice a.v.ramakrishna pillai friday,the27h day of september20135th aswina, 1935 wp(c).no. 10530 of 2005 (c) ---------------------------- petitioner : -------------------------- suja simon, edappallakkattu (h), piramadom, pampakuda p.o., ernakulam district, pin-686 667, sewing teacher, mtm high school, pampakkuda, muvattupuzha. by advs.sri.mohan jacob george smt.p.v.parvathi smt.reena thomas sri.k.n.pramod kumar menon respondent(s): ---------------------------- 1. the director of public instruction, trivandrum.2. the deputy director of education, ernakulam.3. the district educational officer, muvattupuzha.4. the manager, m.t.m.high school, pampakkuda, ernakulam district. r1 to r3 by sr government pleader sri.james mathew kadavan r4 by sri.kurian george kannamthanam,senior advocate this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on2709-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: sts wp(c)no.10530/2005 appendix petitioner's exhibits: p1 copy of the appointment order dated0206/1997 issued to the petitioner by the4h respondent. p2 copy of the order no.d.dis.76765/96/ra(2) dpi dated1703/1997 of the joint director p3 copy of the staff fixation order no.d.dis.4152/97/b4 dated1507/1997 issued by the3d respondent. p4 copy of the communication dated1308/1997 of the d.p.i. issued to the4h respondent. p5 copy of the proceedings dated2411/1997 of the deputy director p6 copy of the appeal memorandum dated0312/1998 submitted before the d.p.i. p7 copy of the order dated2606/1998 of the d.p.i. p8 copy of the communication dated1410/1998 issued by the d.e.o. to the d.p.i p9 copy of the order of the d.e.o. dated1103/1999 p10 copy of the staff fixation order dated0408/1998-1999 p11 copy of the petition dated2608/2004 submitted by the petitioner before the3d respondent. p12 copy of the impleading petition filed as i.a.no.16060/04 by the petitioner in o.p.9245/99 p13 copy of the affidavit and petition filed as i.a.no.1793/2005 in o.p.9245/99 by the petitioner. p14 copy of the judgement1702/2005 in o.p.9245/99 p15 copy of the order dated2302/2005 passed in ext.p13 and p14 respondent's exhibits: nil /true copy/ p.s.to.judge sts a.v.ramakrishna pillai, j --------------------------------------------- w.p.(c) no.10530 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- dated this the 27th day of september, 2013 judgment the petitioner was appointed as sewing teacher in the 4th respondent's school which was sanctioned by the first respondent. the petitioner's appointment order in that post which was forwarded to the 4th respondent was rejected by the third respondent. against it, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal to the director of public instructions who sanctioned the post of a sewing teacher in the 4th respondent school as per ext.p7 order. on the basis of ext.p7 order, the 4th respondent again submitted the appointment order for his approval before the third respondent who again rejected the approval vide ext.p9. however, during all these controversies the petitioner continued her service in the school.2. according to the petitioner, ext.p9 order is not sustainable and the 3rd respondent is bound to give an approval of the petitioner's appointment as sewing wpc no.10530/2005 2 teacher in the 4th respondent school. thus, he has come up with this revision petition.3. a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the post of sewing teacher was restored during the year 1997-1998 by the appellate authority who is the first respondent herein. therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed and approved for the subsequent periods also. it was also pointed out that the third respondent has rejected the appointment for the reason that there was an observation of the accountant general regarding the sanction of the post. in paragraph-16, it is made clear by the first respondent that the third respondent deo had given ext.p10 staff fixation order for 1998-1999. therefore, the petitioner who was appointed against that vacancy is entitled to get approval.4. it is also stated in paragraph-16 that the objection said to have been raised by the a.g. might have been dropped if the third respondent deo had furnished a reply to the ag based on the points contained in the appellate order. wpc no.10530/2005 3 5. for the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the definite view that the rejection of the request of the 4th respondent by the third respondent deo for approving the appointment of the petitioner is without any basis. in the result, this petition is allowed. the third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a sewing teacher in the 4th respondent school with effect from 2.6.1997. he is also directed to furnish the reply to the accountant general based on the points raised in the appellate order passed by the first respondent. needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits in relation to her appointment with effect from 2.6.1997. sd/- a.v.ramakrishna pillai judge css/ true copy p.s.to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI FRIDAY,THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 10530 of 2005 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- SUJA SIMON, EDAPPALLAKKATTU (H), PIRAMADOM, PAMPAKUDA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 667, SEWING TEACHER, MTM HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPAKKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.K.N.PRAMOD KUMAR MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM.

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.

4. THE MANAGER, M.T.M.HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPAKKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN R4 BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.10530/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER

DATED0206/1997 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE4H RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.D.DIS.76765/96/RA(2) DPI DATED1703/1997 OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR P3 COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER

NO.D.DIS.4152/97/B4 DATED1507/1997 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED1308/1997 OF THE D.P.I. ISSUED TO THE4H RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED2411/1997 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR P6 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED0312/1998 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE D.P.I. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED2606/1998 OF THE D.P.I. P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED1410/1998 ISSUED BY THE D.E.O. TO THE D.P.I P9 COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE D.E.O. DATED1103/1999 P10 COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER

DATED0408/1998-1999 P11 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED2608/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED AS I.A.NO.16060/04 BY THE PETITIONER IN O.P.9245/99 P13 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED AS I.A.NO.1793/2005 IN O.P.9245/99 BY THE PETITIONER. P14 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT1702/2005 IN O.P.9245/99 P15 COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED2302/2005 PASSED IN EXT.P13 AND P14 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10530 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as sewing teacher in the 4th respondent's school which was sanctioned by the first respondent. The petitioner's appointment order in that post which was forwarded to the 4th respondent was rejected by the third respondent. Against it, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal to the Director of Public Instructions who sanctioned the post of a sewing teacher in the 4th respondent school as per Ext.P7 order. On the basis of Ext.P7 order, the 4th respondent again submitted the appointment order for his approval before the third respondent who again rejected the approval vide Ext.P9. However, during all these controversies the petitioner continued her service in the school.

2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P9 order is not sustainable and the 3rd respondent is bound to give an approval of the petitioner's appointment as sewing WPC No.10530/2005 2 teacher in the 4th respondent school. Thus, he has come up with this revision petition.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. In paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the post of sewing teacher was restored during the year 1997-1998 by the Appellate Authority who is the first respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed and approved for the subsequent periods also. It was also pointed out that the third respondent has rejected the appointment for the reason that there was an observation of the Accountant General regarding the sanction of the post. In paragraph-16, it is made clear by the first respondent that the third respondent DEO had given Ext.P10 staff fixation order for 1998-1999. Therefore, the petitioner who was appointed against that vacancy is entitled to get approval.

4. It is also stated in paragraph-16 that the objection said to have been raised by the A.G. might have been dropped if the third respondent DEO had furnished a reply to the AG based on the points contained in the appellate order. WPC No.10530/2005 3 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the definite view that the rejection of the request of the 4th respondent by the third respondent DEO for approving the appointment of the petitioner is without any basis. In the result, this petition is allowed. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a sewing teacher in the 4th respondent school with effect from 2.6.1997. He is also directed to furnish the reply to the Accountant General based on the points raised in the appellate order passed by the first respondent. Needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits in relation to her appointment with effect from 2.6.1997. sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE