Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, J
BETTY JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS – Respondent
WP(C)/34433/2006
Appointment - Writ Petitions - Rule 51A Claimant - Act Section List - The case addresses the legality of appointments made by a school manager, emphasizing the right to fair consideration in employment decisions, and the authority of education officials to rectify illegal appointments under the applicable rules and regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Rule 51A claimant, challenged the illegal appointment of the fifth respondent by the Manager of the School, who had been appointed after the petitioner was approved for a position. The case involved multiple representations and orders related to these appointments.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appointment of the fifth respondent was illegal and if the petitioner was entitled to the position of UPSA (Hindi) as of a specified date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that illegal appointments can be challenged and rectified by administrative authorities, reinforcing the principle of fair employment practices within educational institutions.
Final Decision: The petitions were disposed of with directions to reconsider the appointment issue within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions being connected, they are disposed by a common judgment.
2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 34433 of 2006 is as follows:
The petitioner in W.P.(C) 34433 of 2006 is a Rule 51A claimant.
But the fifth respondent in the said writ petition is illegally appointed by the Manager. Petitioner was appointed as HSA (Hindi) vide Ext.P1 order and it is approved. Certain posts arose in the fourth respondent School. The fifth respondent was appointed. The petitioner filed a representation. It was heard by the DEO, who directed the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner after cancelling the appointment of the fifth respondent vide Ext.P3 order. Petitioner then filed representation to the second respondent to implement Ext.P3 order. Due to non-implementation petitioner filed W.P.(C) 21180 of 2006. When the matter was admitted by this court, the Manager appeared and WPC.34433/06 & 4809/07. 2 the matter was disposed of directing consideration of the appeal of the Manager (Ext.P5 judgment). The appellate authority by Ext.P6 order upheld the order of the DEO. Ext.P7 was her representation to implement the order. The prayers are to direct the fourth respondent to implement Exts.P3 and P6, to declare that the appointment of the fifth respondent is illegal and to declare that petitioner is entitled to appointment as UPSA (Hindi) with effect from 17.6.2005., the date on which the fourth respondent illegally appointed the fifth respondent.
There are other prayers also.
W.P.(C) 4808 of 2007 is filed by the Manager. According to him the Manger has preferred Ext.P3 before the DPI against Ext.P2 order, which is the same as Ext.P6 in the other writ petition. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Exts.P3 and P6 in W.P.(C) 34433 of 2006 has become final.
In such circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:
There will be a direction to the first respondent in W.P.(C) 4808 of 2007 to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3 in accordance with WPC.34433/06 & 4809/07. 3 law after hearing the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the fifth respondent in W.P.(C) 34433 of 2006 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.M.JOSEPH, JJ.
W.A. No. OF JUDGMENT Dated this the day of February, 2006.
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
