Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
BINDHU S. R. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial appointment details and the context of rejection. (Para 1) |
| 2. argument for reconsideration based on new qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. final ruling to set aside previous orders. (Para 5) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Hindi Teacher, in the school managed by the 5th respondent herein, as per Ext.P1 dated 08.11.2001. The appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer by Ext.P3 order, which stood confirmed by the order of the District Educational Officer, Pala, at Ext.P4. The 5th respondent Manager, on behalf of the petitioner, preferred a revision petition, which was rejected by Ext.P5 order of the Additional Director of General Education. The order at Ext.P3 ultimately stood confirmed by the Government through Ext.P8 dated 19.11.2022. Thereafter, Ext.P9 was issued, once again rejecting the petitioner’s appointment.
2. Heard Smt.Mary Catherine Priyanka P.S., the learned counsel, representing Dr.George Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.
3. Essentially, a claim made by the petitioner with reference to the provisions of Rule
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
