Geetha Thankappan v. State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 7TH BHADRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** GEETHA THANKAPPAN AGED 42 YEARS D/O.K.C. THANKAPPAN (LATE), KUNNATHUMATTATHIL HOUSE, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686664. BY ADVS. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS ROHITH C. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030. 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, PIN - 683101. 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLENCHERRY, PUTHNCRUZ, PIN - 682308. 6 THE HEADMISTRESS. GOVERNMENT JUNIOR BASIC SCHOOL (JBS), VENNIKULAM, PIN -682305. 7 ASWATHY HARIDAS, **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** PALAKUZHIYIL, THIRUVANIYOOR, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM - 682308. 8 PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR BASIC SCHOOL(JBS), VENNIKULAM, PIN - 682305. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RAJESH CHAKYAT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was appointed as a pre-primary school teacher in the Government Junior Basic School, Vennikulam, and it is virtually without contest that appointment has been made by the 8[th] respondent – Parent Teachers' Association of the said School. She says that she was drawing salary from June 2012, since she was appointed with effect from 01/06/2012; but that when the school re-opened in June 2013, she was informed by its Headmistress that she had already been terminated. 2. The petitioner says that she, therefore, preferred WP(C) No. 15346 of 2020 before this Court, which led to Ext.P17 judgment, directing the Government to consider her representation against her termination; particularly, because in the post from which she has been removed, the 7[th] respondent has already been appointed. 3. The petitioner alleges that, however, the Government **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **4** has now issued Ext.P19 order, citing three reasons to justify her removal: namely, that she had misbehaved with children and was found guilty of misconduct; that she was not qualified to have been appointed; and that she did not complete one year in service. She contends that these reasons in Ext.P19 order are untenable; and thus prays that the same be set aside. 4. Sri.Paul Abraham Vakkanal – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Rohith.C – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Ext.P19 has made certain conclusions without any corroborating or substantiating materials; and therefore, that it is without legs to stand on forensically. The learned Senior counsel then asserted that law is now well settled by the Honourable Supreme Court, as early as from its judgment in _**Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978 (1) SCC 405]**_ , that every administrative order will have to be justified based on its own contents, and not on the strength of subsequent pleadings, when it is challenged before Courts. He then pointed out from Ext.P19 that, even though **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **5** Government says that his client was not qualified for being appointed in the year 2012 and that she was guilty of bad behaviour and misconduct to children, there is nothing to substantiate any of these allegations; but that, on the contrary, she has been victimized, since she was fully qualified in June 2012, when she was offered appointment and because there was no enquiry whatsoever before concluding that she was guilty of misconduct. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that Ext.P19 be set aside and his client be directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. 5. Sri.Biju C. Abraham – learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent, explained that his client had replaced the petitioner subsequent to her termination; and argued that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. He expatiated his contentions saying that petitioner was removed from service, admittedly, as early as with effect from 31/03/2013, while she chose to approach this Court, for the first time, only through WP(C) No.15346 of 2020, which culminated in Ext.P17 judgment. He **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **6** pointed out that, in fact, at that time, the petitioner had, along with his client, appeared for the subsequent interview and was found not eligible to be appointed; and hence that her present attempt is only a desperate one to snatch an employment, which she was not entitled to. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 6. Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, argued in full support of Ext.P19, saying that petitioner cannot maintain any claim against the School, since she was appointed only by its Parent Teacher Association and since she worked only for nearly eight months. She argued that, therefore, no reasons were, in fact, required to be given, when she was terminated from service; then adding that this is more so because she had been found behaving badly to children and of having indulged in several acts of misconduct. She further submitted that Government has also found that petitioner was not qualified at the time when she was appointed in the year 2012; and, therefore, that **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **7** all these factors make Ext.P19 irreproachable. 7. I have considered and evaluated the afore rival submissions from the touchstone of the precedents that cover the field. 8. It is indubitable that Ext.P19 has found three reasons to justify the termination of the petitioner, namely (a) that she was not qualified as on 01/06/2012; (b) that she was found guilty of misbehaviour to children and other misconduct; and (c) that she had worked less than one year in the post in question. 9. I do not propose to enter into the merits of any of these allegations because these are certainly matters that ought to have been considered and established by the competent Authorities at the first instance. 10. However, when one reads Ext.P19, it is clear that even though the afore imputations are made, there is absolutely nothing reflected therein to justify the same. For **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **8** example, when Ext.P19 says that petitioner has been found guilty of bad behaviour to children and misconduct, the order does not reflect on what basis this has been said, especially as to whether there was an equiry against her and whether it had concluded in the establishment of guilt against her. Similarly, even though the petitioner asserts that she was fully qualified to have been appointed to the said post; and though it is her adscitious case that Ext.P11 order is in her favour, which adverts to the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.205 of 2011, as also to certain circulars and orders issued thereafter, Ext.P19 order makes no reference to them. Further, the impact of the factum of the petitioner having worked for less than a year, is also not specifically stated in the impugned order. 11. The afore not having been done, I am certain that Government must reconsider the entire matter; for which purpose, Ext.P19 be required to be set aside. **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **9** In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P19; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the Government to reconsider the matter, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, the Government will advert to my afore observations, as also to Exts.P4, P11 and P13 orders; but I clarify that this Court has not spoken affirmatively on any of the rival contentions or on the eligibility of the petitioner to any relief and therefore, that the said Authority will deal with them and answer them as per law. It also goes without saying that until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to all parties, 7th respondent will not be **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **10** disturbed and the _status quo_ with respect to the post in question shall continue. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.Biju C.Abrham – learned counsel, argued that petitioner had joined another school and that this is evident from the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.15346 OF 2020 which she field, but was subsequently withdrawn, through Ext.P17 judgment. He prayed that this may also be directed to be kept in mind by the Government, when the afore exercise is completed. Needless to say, every relevant and germane aspect will be considered by the Government, including the afore submission of Sri.Biju C.Abraham, while the order resultant to the afore direction is issued. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** ANB ## **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** ## **11** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25435/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-PRIMARY TEACHERS| ||TRAINING<br>COURSE<br>CERTIFICATE<br>DATED| ||02.04.2012.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE AQUINTANCE REGISTER IN| ||THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S SCHOOL FROM JUN -| ||2012 TO MARCH 2012.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY CERTIFICATE DATED| ||15.12.2012.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 8505/P/12| ||GEN.EDU DT. 18.02.2012.| |Exhibit P4(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A5/12308/12 DT.| ||22.06.2013.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED| ||BY PETITIONER TO RS DT. 06.06.2013.| |Exhibit P5(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF R5 FOR THE| ||REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2013.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED TO R3| ||DT. 04.12.2013.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/7768/13(N)| ||REJECTING THE HONORARIUM DT. 06.12.2013.| |Exhibit P7(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM R3.27.02.2014.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED| ||18.11.2014.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO WITHDRAW| ||WP(C) DT. 22.07.2020.| ## **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** ## **12** Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE AT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MANEED DT.20.11.2019. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. N.S4/44009/14/D.P.I.DT. 21.07.2014. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 21/11/2019. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.146/2013/GEN.EDN.DT. 25.04.2013. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 37/2017/GEN.EDN.DT. 07.05.2017. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE OF RS. ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER OF RE DT. 08.05.2020. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY REPRESENTATION DATED 30.07.2020 WITHOUT ANNEXURES. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 15346 OF 2020 DATED 07.08.2020. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES DATED 20.12.2020. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 221/2021/GEDN DATED 12.10.2021. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON 20/03/2013 IN WHICH THE PETITIONER HAD **WP(C) NO. 25435 OF 2021** **13** PARTICIPATED Exhibit R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/05/2013 ALONG WITH THE MARKS SCORED BY THE PETITIONER AND MYSELF Exhibit R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 25/06/2013 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF PTA Exhibit R7(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 31/12/20215 ISSUED BY THE PTA, GOVERNMENT UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUTTUMANNOOR TERMINATING THE PETITIONER Exhibit R7(F) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/02/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit R8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 12/12/2022