Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2778
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J
P SINDHU – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 19779/2013
The court underscored the necessity for timely and fair decision-making in employment appointment disputes, particularly in educational institutions.
Headnote:
Employment - Appointment - Education Act Section List - The court examined the legality of the appointment process under relevant education regulations, emphasizing the duty to expedite consideration of pending grievances and the necessity for fair treatment in employment matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Primary School Assistant but faced issues with the approval of the appointment due to the school's classification as uneconomic. After inter-agency appeals, the petitioner received approval only on a daily wage basis and contested this in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from reviewing the merits of the petitioner's claims and directed the relevant authority to address the pending revision petition expeditiously, ensuring fairness in the decision-making process.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the petitioner can be approved on regular terms rather than daily wages and the procedural requirements for addressing grievances related to employment appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it must ensure the timely consideration of employment grievances, emphasizing procedural efficiency and fairness while leaving the substantive merits for the appropriate authority.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for expeditious consideration of the pending revision petition.
JUDGMENT
------------------
The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in Kuttikkakam North Lower Primary School with effect from 01.06.2011 against a retirement vacancy of one Smt.E.Rema, as per Ext.P1. That appointment was declined to be approved as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the school is an uneconomic school and hence, the said vacancy should have been filled up by a protected teacher. The Manager preferred an appeal against Ext.P2 before the third respondent. The third respondent passed Ext.P3 order. As per Ext.P3 the fourth respondent was directed to consider the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioner effected as per Ext.P1 in the light of Govt. Circular No.13402/J2/2012/G.Edn. Dated 10.06.2012. Thereafter, the appointment as per Ext.P1 was approved however, only on daily wages basis. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer approving the appointment as per Order No.C/5802/2012 dated 23.01.2013 only on daily wages basis that the petitioner moved Ext.P9 revision petition before the Government. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner to assail the said order. Since Ext.P9 is pending before the Government I do not propose to consider those contentions in this writ petition on merits and in that view of the matter, notice need not be issued to the 5th respondent in this proceedings. Since the petitioner has already taken up his grievances against Ext.P9 order of 4th respondent dated.23.01.2013 before the Government in revision through Ext.P9, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the 5th respondent, as well.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
