Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50425
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
A DEVIKA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10378/2014
Timely consideration of appeals and procedural fairness are essential in educational appointments.
Headnote:
Appointment - Educational Employment - Act Section List - The court directed the consideration of appeal-related orders within a specified timeline, underscoring the legal provisions regarding timely decisions by educational authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, employed as a High School Assistant, sought appointment as HSST Teacher but faced rejection of the transfer appointment in favor of another candidate. The challenge to this decision pushed the matter to a higher authority, leading to pending appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the ongoing appeal process and mandated the educational authority to expedite the consideration of relevant orders while ensuring both parties are heard, emphasizing due process.
Issues: Whether the authorities acted in accordance with legal mandates regarding the appointment to the HSST position and the timeliness of addressing appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity for governmental bodies to address appeals efficiently and within reasonable timelines, referencing the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to resolve the pending appeal within three months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as High School Assistant (English) in Moothedath Higher Secondary School, Taliparamba, Kannur District, put forth a claim for appointment as an HSST Teacher against the prescribed quota of 25%. But, the 'by transfer' appointment was rejected and the Management of the School appointed the 5th respondent as the HSST (English). The challenge against the said proceedings led to Ext.P2 order dated 28.12.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent, from which, an appeal was preferred, vide Ext.P3.
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Government Pleader that, the Appeal culminated in Ext.R4(a) order passed by the Director on 02.05.2014, which has been sought to be challenged by the Manager as well as the party respondent and it is pending consideration before the Government/1st respondent by way of Ext.R4(b)/Ext.R5(a), produced along with the Counter Affidavit filed by the concerned respondents. The prayer is to cause the same to be considered and finalised within the shortest possible time.
3. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.R4(b)/Ext.R5(a) and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, which shall be done after hearing both the sides, at the earliest, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, Interlocutory Applications and Counter Affidavits, before the 1st respondent, for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp
