Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14921
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
RAJESWARI K R – Appellant
Versus
B C SOORYA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 19358/2017
Statutory remedies must be pursued, allowing for fair hearings before final decisions on employment claims.
Headnote:
Appointment - Educational Employments - Rule 51A - The court directed that a decision be made on a revision petition concerning the appointment status of the petitioner after hearing all parties involved within a specified timeframe, emphasizing statutory remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a School Assistant, but approval was denied by the District Educational Officer due to an existing claim by another candidate. The petitioner appealed, but the appeal was also rejected, leading to further revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision petitions should be heard by the 2nd respondent and directed them to do so within two months, allowing all parties an opportunity to present their case.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s appointment was valid in light of another candidate's claim under rule 51A and what interim relief could be provided during the revision process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of affording a fair hearing and the necessity of resolving statutory remedies before dismissing the petitioner's claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to hear the revision petitions within two months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as UP School Assistant under the
5th respondent School as per Ext.P1 order with effect from 19.2.2016. But the District Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval on the ground that there is a 51A claimant - the 6th respondent awaiting appointment and the appointment was made overlooking her claim. The petitioner as well as the Manager took up the matter in appeal and the Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal as per Ext.P6 order on the very same ground. Now the Manager as well as the petitioner have approached the 2nd respondent with Exts.P7 and P8 revision petitions. The petitioner submits that the 6th respondent did not have one year service, so as to claim appointment under rule
51A, in the light of Ext.P4 judgment of the apex court.
2. At any rate since the petitioner as well as the Manager resorted to statutory remedies before the 2nd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the revision petitions Exts.P7 and P8 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
W.P.(C) No.19358/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Manager is not permitting the petitioner to put signature in the attendance register she has requested for an interim order in the revision petition filed before the Director of Public Instruction. Therefore there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the question of interim relief sought for in revision petition within a period of two weeks.
