Krishna Haridas v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-02-16
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P7 set aside; 4th respondent to reconsider the matter in light of Clause (1) in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5, provide opportunity of hearing to petitioner and fifth respondent, complete within two months, and disburse benefits if approved.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P7 quashed; matter to be reconsidered by the 4th respondent with hearing and in light of Ext.P5; final order to be passed within two months; if approved, consequential benefits to be disbursed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishna Haridas aged 25 years, son of Haridas V., LPSA, LP/UP School, Kathikudam, Thrissur-680308

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Director of General Education, Directorate of General Education, Jagathi, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
The District Educational Officer, Office of the DEO, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur-680121
The Assistant Educational Officer, Office of AEO, Mala, Thrissur-680732
The Manager, LP, UP School, Kathikudam, Thrissur-680308

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.T. Muhamood
• A. Renjit
• V.E. Abdul Gafoor
• A. Mohammed Savad
• Nazeer Huzain
• H.T.R. Vishnu

Counsels for Respondents

• K.M. Faisal, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the appointment of the petitioner as a Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA) at Kathikudam, Thrissur, and the denial of approval for that appointment in a school considered uneconomic. The petitioner, who took up service with effect from 01.06.2015 in the school managed by the fifth respondent, faced rejection of the appointment proposal by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) as per Ext P1, a decision subsequently confirmed by Exts P2 and P4. After the Government issued Ext P5 on 01.08.2019, the petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No. 4523/2019; the Court directed reconsideration by the AEO in light of Ext P5. Subsequently, Ext P7 was issued by the AEO, again denying regularization on the ground that the petitioner was a daily-wage employee. The Court, relying on Ext P6 (the Court’s earlier judgment), observed that Ext P5 required reconsideration and directed the 4th respondent to re-examine the issue with notice and a hearing. It noted that Clause (1) in paragraph 2 of Ext P5 should be properly applied and that the matter must be concluded within two months. The judgment ultimately allows the writ petition, sets aside Ext P7, and directs fresh orders with due process; if the appointment is approved, back pay and other monetary benefits should be disbursed promptly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 and the orders denying approval are unsustainable in light of Ext.P5 (GO No. 2/17874/2019/DGE dated 01.08.2019) and the prior directive in Ext.P6. It is argued that the 4th respondent must re-evaluate the appointment application with due process, consider the terms of Ext.P5, and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to participate, so that regularization, if warranted, and monetary benefits can be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that appointment in an uneconomic school cannot be approved; the AEO’s order Ext.P7 follows policy and orders; Ext.P5 empowers reconsideration but not automatic regularization; the court should defer to the policy and ensure adherence to administrative law principles.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** KRISHNA HARIDAS AGED 25 YEARS D/O HARIDAS V., LPSA, LP/UP SCHOOL, KATHIKUDAM, THRISSUR-680308, (RESIDING AT UPPATH HOUSE, P.O CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR-680307. BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD A.RENJIT V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR A.MOHAMMED SAVAD NAZEER HUZAIN.H T.R.VISHNU ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEO, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680121. 4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF AEO, MALA, THRISSUR-680732. 5 THE MANAGER LP, UP SCHOOL, KATHIKUDAM, THRISSUR-680308. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** # **-----------------------------W.P.(C)No. 29656 of 2021** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: _“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext:P7 Order._ _(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext:P4 Government Order._ _(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext:P1 and P2 orders._ _(iv) Issue a writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPSA w.e.f 01.06.2015 on scale of pay and disburse all monetary benefits. And_ _Such other or further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the particular facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]_ WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 3 2. The petitioner was appointed as LPSA w.e.f 01.06.2015 in the school managed by the 5[th] respondent. The appointment was against a promotion vacancy consequent to the promotion of an LPSA as Head Master. The proposal for approval of appointment was rejected by the AEO as per Ext:P1, stating that the appointment in uneconomic school cannot be approved. The same was confirmed as per Exts:P2 and P4. Thereafter, Ext:P5 Government order was issued 01.08.2019. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.4523/2019. That writ petition was disposed of directing the Assistant Educational Officer to reconsider the issue in the light of the Ext.P5 Government Order. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order is passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 4 4. This Court considered the contentions raised by the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P6 judgment will show that this Court directed reconsideration in the light of Ext.P5 order. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P6 judgment: _“2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. On a perusal of Exhibit P5 what I could gather is that, subsequent to the passage of adverse orders passed against the petitioner developments have taken place consequent to withdrawal of certain orders by State Government and in that view of the matter alone, re-consideration of issues with respect to the approval was directed to be taken by the Assistant Educational officer concerned._ _3. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing to the 4th respondent i.e., Assistant Educational Officer, Mala to re-consider the issue of approval of the petitioner taking into account Exhibit P5 Government Order dated 01/08/19 at the earliest and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if required, after securing participation of the petitioner. ”_ WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 5 ## 5. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 order is also extracted hereunder: _“_ മതതിയയായ എണണ്ണം കുടതികളതിലയാത്ത സ്കൂളുകളതിലല പ്രഥമയാധധയാപക നതിയമനണ്ണം വഴതി റതിസൾടനന്റ് വവക്കൻസതി ഉണയാകുന്നതന്റ് മതതിയയായ എണണ്ണം കുടതികളുള്ള സ്കൂളുകളതിലയായയാലണ്ണം പ്രസ് **ത** ു വവക്കൻസതി ലപ്രയാടക്ടഡന്റ് ടടീച്ചലറ ഉപവയയാഗതിച്ചു മയാത്രവമ ന നതികത്തയാവു എന്ന നതിബന്ധന സർക്കയാർ തയാൽപരധത് **ത** വതിരുദ്ധമയായതതിനയാൽ പ്രസ് **ത** ു വധവസ്ഥ ഉൾലക്കയാള്ളുന്ന പരയാമർശണ്ണം _(5)_ ലല സർക്കുലർ പതിൻവലതിക്കയാൻ സർക്കയാർ പരയാമർശണ്ണം _(6)_ പ്രകയാരണ്ണം ഉത്തരവന്റ് പുറലപ്പെടുവതിച്ചതിട്ടുണന്റ് _._ ഈ സയാഹചരധത് **ത** ൽ പരയാമർശണ്ണം _(5)_ ലല സർക്കുലർ _02-05-2008_ പ്രയാബലധത് **ത** ൽ തലന്ന റദയാക്കതിലകയാണന്റ് തയാലഴ പറയുന്ന നതിർവദേശങ്ങളുണ്ണം _._ പുറലപ്പെടുവതിക്കുന _1)_ മതതിയയായ എണണ്ണം കുടതികളതിലയാത്ത സ്കൂളുകളതിലല പ്രഥമയാധധയാപക നതിയമനണ്ണം വഴതി ഉണയാകുന്ന ഒഴതിവതിൽ സണ്ണംരകതിതയാധധയാപകലന നതിയമതിക്കണലമന്ന പരയാമർശണ്ണം _(5)_ ലല സർക്കുലർ നതിലനതിന്നതതിനയാൽ നതിയമനയാണ്ണംഗടീകയാരണ്ണം ലഭതിക്കയാലത ഇവപ്പെയാഴണ്ണം തുടരുന്ന അധധയാപകരുലട നതിയമനങ്ങൾ പ്രതധക അപ്പെവലറന്റ് ഉത്തരവതിലയാലത തലന്ന _._ അണ്ണംഗടീകരതിക്കയാവുന്നതയാണന്റ് _2)_ മതതിയയായ എണണ്ണം കുടതികളതിലയാത്ത സ്കൂളുകളതിലല WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 6 പ്രഥമയാധധയാപക നതിയമനണ്ണം വഴതിയുള്ള റതിസൽറനന്റ് വവക്കൻസതിയതിൽ പരയാമർശണ്ണം _(5 )_ ലല സർക്കുലർ പ്രകയാരണ്ണം അവലര സണ്ണംരകതിതയാദ് **ധ** യാപകലര നതിയമതിച്ചതിട്ടുലണങതിൽ ബന്ധലപ്പെട വതിദേധയാഭധയാസ ഉപഡയറക്ടർമയാർ തതിരതിലക വതിളതിവക്കണതുണ്ണം ഉചതിതമയായ പുനർവതിനധയാസണ്ണം നൽവകണതുമയാണന്റ് _.”_ 6. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order is passed by the Assistant Educational Officer stating that, since the petitioner is continuing on daily wages, the appointment can not be approved on regular basis on scale of pay. But I am of the considered opinion that the AEO has not considered Clause (1) in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5 order in a proper manner. I am of the opinion that this matter has to be reconsidered by the AEO with notice to the petitioner. For facilitating the AEO to pass fresh orders, Ext.P7 can be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: i. Ext.P7 is set aside. WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 7 ii. The 4[th] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of Clause (1) in paragraph 2 of Ext.P5 order. iii. Before passing final order, the 4[th] respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent. iv. The above exercise shall be completed by the 4[th] respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v. If the petitioner's appointment is approved, the consequential benefits also shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO. 29656 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29656/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D-| |---|---| ||1974/2015/L.DIS DATED 20.07.2016| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-| ||7270/16/K.DIS DATED 25.10.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED| ||07.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF G O (RT)| ||NO.3144/2018/G.EDN DATED 16.08.2018.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||2/17874/2019/DGE DATED 01.08.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||03.10.2019 IN WPC NO.4523/2019.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/17182/19| ||DATED 11.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE| ||2ND RESPONDENT ON 14.06.2021.| RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE