Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10965
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
LAKSHMI M.P., – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/3830/2021
SHRI.ASIF N, SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR, SHRI.RAMABHADRAN K., SRI.T RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD
Administrative fairness in employment decisions requires consideration of all parties and their appeals before implementing shifts in vacancies.
Headnote:
Education - Writ Petition - N/A - The court directed the examination of appeals regarding employment appointments and vacancies after hearing all parties, highlighting the importance of fairness in administrative processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24217/2020 was shifted from a regular post to a leave vacancy to accommodate another approved teacher, prompting a challenge to this decision alongside an appeal that had not been considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the procedural gap and instructed the Director General of Education (DGE) to review the revision petition and appeal, ensuring all parties, including the affected individuals, are heard.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the shift of the petitioner from a regular vacancy to a leave vacancy, which negatively impacted their employment status, was lawful and justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that administrative decisions, especially regarding employment, must adhere to legal standards of fair hearing and lawful procedure.
Final Decision: The judgment ordered the DGE to consider the appeals and pass appropriate orders within three months.
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).3830/2021, WP(C).24217/2020 ]
Dated this the 24th day of March 2021 The challenge raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the shifting of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24217/2020 from a regular vacancy to a leave vacancy. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.24217/2020 was appointed in a regular vacancy of HSA (Physical Science) with effect from 05.07.2016. The appointment was approved and probation declared. However, it is submitted that on the ground that the 5th respondent, an approved teacher is liable to be accommodated in the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed, the petitioner was shifted to a leave vacancy and the 5th respondent was accommodated in the regular vacancy. It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the DEO and that the same has not been considered.
2. W.P.(C).No.3830/2021 has been filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C).No.24217/2020. The substantial prayer in the said writ petition is a challenge against Exts.P4 and P4(a) appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24217/2020 and for a consideration of Ext.P6 revision petition preferred by the petitioner before the DGE. It is submitted that a hearing has been conducted on Ext.P6 revision petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on all sides, I notice that the issue is with regard to the filling up of the post in the year 2016-17. In view of the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.3830/2021 has already approached the DGE with Ext.P6 revision petition, I am of the opinion that the entire issue is liable to be considered in accordance with law in the said revision petition.
4. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 2nd respondent-DGE to take up Ext.P6 revision petition preferred by the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.3830/2021 as well as the appeal submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24217/2020 before the DEO and to pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing all parties afresh including the petitioners in the writ petitions, the Manager and any other affected teachers. Orders shall be passed after hearing the parties, through any appropriate means, including by video conferencing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24217/2020 shall be permitted to make a representation before the DGE pointing out his contentions. Orders shall be passed after considering the contentions as well.
These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3830/2021 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2006.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 4526/10/G.EDN DATED 21.10.2010.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 1348/12/G.EDN DATED 20..30.2012.
EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 5733/14/G.EDN DATED 27.12.2014.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B(4)/7317/2015/
DEO/D.DIS DATED 16.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
7TH RESPONDENT DATED 05.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED TO EXHIBIT P-4 VIDE ORDER NO. B(4)/6181/2016/
DEO/DIS DATED 02.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER VIDE ORDR NOS. 3-106/2020 DATED 01.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGER VIDE ORDR NOS. 3-107/2020 DATED 01.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
10.12.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24217/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER UNDER RULE XIV A RULE 7 DATED 05/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALARY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST 2020.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE
