Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38731
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
K.LAISAMOL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/20895/2020
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD
Approval for educational appointments cannot be unduly delayed by unrelated seniority disputes, although such disputes may later affect the final outcome.
Headnote:
Approval - Appointment - K.E.R. Chapter 14, Rule 8(A) - The court directed the immediate completion of proceedings for the approval of the petitioner's appointment while clarifying that such approval is subject to the resolution of seniority disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought approval for her appointment as a Lower Primary School Assistant, which was delayed due to a seniority dispute among teachers. The petitioner argued against the legality of a prior order blocking her approval.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed that the pending seniority issue should not hold back the decision on the petitioner's appointment approval, affirming that necessary procedures must be followed.
Issues: Whether the approval of the petitioner's appointment could be delayed by an ongoing seniority dispute among teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the approval process should proceed independently of the seniority dispute, with the understanding that any decision on seniority could still influence the final approval.
Final Decision: The writ petition was ordered in favor of the petitioner, directing timely completion of approval proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of October 2020 The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a Lower Primary School Assistant (L.P.S.A) in the M.D.M.L.P. School, Karingachira, managed by the 5th respondent-Corporate Manager, has approached this Court, seeking directions to the competent Educational Authorities, to approve her afore appointment from 04-06-2007 and to grant her the consequent service benefits.
2. The petitioner says that Exhibit P9 proceedings issued by the 4th respondent- Assistant Educational Officer, is legally untenable; and therefore, prays that her approval be directed to be considered de hors the said order. The petitioner prays that the afore exercise be directed to be completed by the competent respondents within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri M.Sajjad, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. Nisha Bose, submitted that the only reason why the petitioner's approval has not yet been granted is because there is a seniority issue among the rival teachers and that the Deputy Director of Education is in the process of hearing the same. She submitted that the hearing of the parties was scheduled by the said Authority on 21-10-2020, but that it had to be postponed on account of the covid- 19 pandemic restrictions. She added that as soon as the Deputy Director of Education completes the hearing, he will issue appropriate orders, based on which the petitioner's approval can also be granted.
4. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is without doubt that the petitioner has been appointed by the Corporate Manager, through Exhibit P2 order and that her approval has been denied until now, as it is evident form Exhibit P9 order, only because the Manager had not made the necessary proposal within time. The learned Senior Government Pleader, however, today submits that the approval for petitioner's appointment is still pending only because of the seniority dispute, which is pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Education.
5. I am consequently of the firm view that the above mentioned proceedings before the Deputy Director of Education need not hold back the decision with respect to the approval of petitioner's appointment, since it is indubitable that if the orders in the seniority dispute ends against the petitioner, the Director of General Education has full competence even to review her approval, in terms of Rule 8(A) of Chapter 14 of the K.E.R.
6. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 4th respondent-Assistant Education Officer, to immediately complete the proceedings with respect to the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her, as well as the Manager of the School-either physically or through video conferencing-thus culminating an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later that one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that even if the petitioner is granted approval in terms of the directions afore, the same will be subject to any decision to be taken by the Deputy Director of Education as regards the seniority dispute and that it will be always open to the Director of General Education to review the said approval in terms of law, if so necessary and after following due procedure.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SSK/22/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.MDM 01/2017 DATED
2.6.2007.
EXHIBIT P1(A)TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2007.
EXHIBIT P1(B)TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.A-2166/07/K.DIS. DATED
4.6.2008.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.MDM 1/2010 DATED
20.5.2010.
EXHIBIT P2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDE
