M. MUHAMMED SHAKKIR v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2023-06-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- Ext.P18 is set aside for being non-speaking; the Government is directed to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P15 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 5–11, expeditiously and within four months, and to assess the applicability of Exts.P6, P20, P21 and P22 in light of this judgment. The petitioner must supply a certified copy of this judgment for compliance. The proceedings to be conducted in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution read with the Rules of Business.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M. Muhammed Shakkir
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Secretariat Annex II, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- The Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
- The Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvananthapuram-695036
- The District Educational Officer, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram-695101
- The Manager, Noble Groups of Schools, ChirayinKeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram-695304
- The Headmaster, SCV Boys HS, ChirayinKeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram-695304
- The Principal, SSV GHS, ChirayinKeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram-695304
- The Headmaster, CV LPS, ChirayinKeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram-695304
- The Headmaster SNV HSS, Panayara, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram-695145
- Smt. Rema Devi HSS/T Malayalam, SSV GHS, ChirayinKeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram-695304
- Smt. Indu Krishna LPSA SNV HSS, Panayara, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram-695145
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • V. A. Muhammed
- • M. Sajjad
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Surya Binoy, Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges a Government revision order Ext.P18 under Rule 92, Chapter XIV A KER, in a dispute over appointment to UPSA/LPSA against permanent vacancies in the Department of Education. The petitioner seeks to be shifted to a regular vacancy from 04.06.2012 in preference to the 10th and 11th respondents and to obtain appointment and approval as UPSA and LPSA with consequential benefits. The petitioners urge that Ext.P18 is not a speaking order and violates the due-process requirements laid down in Sudheer T. vs. M.V. Susheela (2009 (3) KHC 991), arguing that a government revision must be decided in conformity with Article 166 of the Constitution and related Rules of Business. The court examines the nature of the revision and notes that Ext.P18 is not a speaking order, and that it fails to comply with the principle laid down in Sudheer T. Consequently, Ext.P18 is set aside. The court directs the Government to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P15 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 5–11, within four months, and to examine the applicability of Exts.P6, P20, P21 and P22 in light of the judgment. The petitioner is to produce a certified copy of this judgment for compliance. The decision emphasizes adherence to constitutional procedure in administrative revisional actions and due process for affected parties.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Speaking order principle in revisional/judicial actions; Government revision must be in conformity with Article 166 of the Constitution and respective Rules of Business
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends entitlement to be shifted against a regular UPSA/LPSA vacancy from 04.06.2012 in preference to the 10th and 11th respondents, and seeks appointment and approval as UPSA/LPSA against permanent vacancies with consequential benefits. He prays for setting aside Ext.P18 (the revision order) as not a speaking order, and for directions to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P15 in light of Exts.P6, P20, P21 and P22, after affording hearing to him and to respondents 5–11, within a four-month time frame, with such further orders as the Court deems fit.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents rely on the revision process under Rule 92, Chapter XIV A KER and contend for adherence to the Government’s prerogative in revisional actions, asserting that Ext.P18 was issued as per statutory requirements and should be maintained; they have not provided explicit arguments in the text of the judgment excerpt beyond defending the validity of the revision order and the process followed.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sudheer T. vs. M.V. Susheela and others | 2009 (3) KHC 991 | Positive | Used to articulate the principle that government revision must be a speaking order under Article 166 and the relevant rules. |
| W.P.C. No. 34643/2022 | WPC 34643/2022 | Mentioned Only | Judgment cited as Exhibit P-17; not discussed in detail in the text. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M. MUHAMMED SHAKKIR v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.