SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOUDATH K.V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 10156/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 3RD MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 10156 of 2016 PETITIONER(S):

SOUDATH K.V., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ARABIC), C.H.M.HIGH SCHOOL, ELAYAVOOR P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 621.

BY ADV.SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENT(S):

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR.

5. THE MANAGER, C.H.M.HIGH SCHOOL, ELAYAVOOR P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

6. THE HEADMASTER, C.H.M.HIGH SCHOOL, ELAYAVOOR P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.S.ASHRAF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 08.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.1476/2002/G.EDN DATED 05.06.2002.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF SMT.GEETHA.E.K.

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI.

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTION ORDER DATED 18.05.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 13.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2014 IN W.P.(C)NO. 28695/2013.

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2011 IN W.P.(C)NO. 30613/2008.

EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.08.2014 IN W.P.(C)NO. 30130/2013.

EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.519/E2/04 G.EDN.

DATED 17.07.2004.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL //TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2018

JUDGMENT

1.The petitioner was appointed in the 5th respondent's school as HSA (Arabic) and his appointment was approved w.e.f. 4.6.2012 in a regular scale of pay. The petitioner claims that earlier spells of appointment from 8.11.2004 to 12.06.2007 and 13.6.2007 to 3.6.2012 had not been approved.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Government Pleader.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointments from 8.11.2004 to 12.06.2007 and from 13.6.2007 to 3.6.2012 were against Leave Without Allowance vacancies. It is submitted that approval for these periods is declined on the ground that the vacancy should have been filled up by appointing protected teachers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vacancies being leave vacancies could have been filled up by appointing fresh hands by the Manager. It is further contended that since there was no list made available by the Deputy Director of Education of protected teacher as on the date when the petitioner had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top