Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37619
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
NISHA P – Appellant
Versus
DINU DAVIES Advocate -SRI T A SHAJI (SR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 28213/2013
Appointment approvals in educational institutions must be timely, taking into account all claims and ensuring fair hearing for affected parties.
Headnote:
Employment - Appointment Approval - W.P.(C)No.28213 of 2013, W.P.(C)No.27530 of 2015 - The court addressed the approval process for appointments in educational institutions, emphasizing the need for timely consideration and the rights of candidates for transfer based appointments.
Fact of the Case:
Two competing writ petitions sought to determine the rightful appointment of a Head of Secondary School Teacher in Chemistry, one challenging a pending approval of the other’s appointment.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appointments made in the respective writ petitions should be approved, considering the ongoing litigation regarding the validity and entitlement of the appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appointment approvals should be addressed expeditiously and all relevant claims must be considered fairly, ensuring no previous provisional order affects the decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the approval authority to decide on the appointments within a month.
J U D G M E N T
W.P.(C)No.28213 of 2013 is filed seeking appointment with effect from 15.7.2013 to the post of H.S.S.T.(Jr.) in Chemistry in the 7th respondent-School, as also challenging Ext.P3 to the extent to which the 8th respondent is appointed as such. There was a prayer to the 4th respondent to refrain from approving the appointment of the 8th respondent as H.S.S.T.(Jr.) in Chemistry. W.P.(C)No.27530 of 2015 is filed by the 8th respondent in W.P.(C)No.28213 of 2013 seeking directions to consider Ext.P1 appointment order and to approve the same. It is submitted that the appointment is not being approved only because of the pendency of W.P.(C)No.28213 of 2013.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27530 of 2015 was appointed as H.S.S.T.(Jr.) in Chemistry on 12.9.2013 against a vacancy which arose on 15.7.2013. It is contended that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27530 of 2015 is continuing as H.S.S.T.(Jr.) in Chemistry on the strength of the appointment order without :-2-:
being paid any salary. The claim in W.P.(C)No.28213 of 2013 is that the petitioner is entitled to 'appointment by transfer' in the 25% quota set apart for such appointment, since there are 17 HSST posts in the 7th respondent's School. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Manager contends that there are only 7 posts of HSST (Jr.) and one post has already been filled up by transfer by a senior incumbent from the post of HSA. The said appointment is also not under challenge.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27530 of 2015 has already been appointed against the vacancy of H.S.S.T.(Jr.) in Chemistry which arose on 15.7.2013, I am of the opinion that the question of approval of such appointment is to be considered by the 4th respondent without further delay. However, when the question of approval is being taken up by the 4th respondent, the claim raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28213 of 2013 shall also be considered. It is made clear that the order of approval issued provisionally on 17.5.2016, during the pendency of these writ petitions will not be binding on the parties. The 3rd respondent shall consider the question of grant :-3-:
of approval to the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27530 of 2015, untrammelled by anything stated therein. The orders on the question of grant of approval shall be passed after hearing the petitioner as well as the Manager and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28213 of 2013, within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall appear before the 3rd respondent on 10.1.2017 and the order shall be passed after hearing the parties concerned. Depending on the orders to be passed by the 3rd respondent, consequential benefits, including the salary and the arrears thereof, shall be disbursed within a period of 2 months from the date of the order so passed. It is made clear that no observations on merits have been made in this judgment.
All pending interlocutory applications are closed.
