High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed

M. MUHAMMED SHAKKIR v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.17858 of 2023

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

Article 166 of the Constitution of IndiaRule 92, Chapter XIV A, Kerala Education Rules (KER)

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sudheer T. vs. M.V. Susheela and others2009 (3) KHC 991PositiveUsed to articulate the principle that government revision must be a speaking order under Article 166 and the relevant rules.
W.P.C. No. 34643/2022WPC 34643/2022Mentioned OnlyJudgment cited as Exhibit P-17; not discussed in detail in the text.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 17858 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** M.MUHAMMED SHAKKIR AGED 40 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED SALI, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, SCV BOYS HS, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304. (RESIDING AT SALAMATH MANZIL, KANNYAKULANGARA, VEMBAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695615 BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014, PIN - 695014 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 036., PIN - 695036 4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 101., PIN - 695101 5 THE MANAGER, NOBLE GROUPS OF SCHOOLS, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304., PIN - 695304 6 THE HEADMASTER, SCV BOYS HS, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304, PIN - 695304 7 THE PRINCIPAL, SSV GHSS, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 2 695 304., PIN - 695304 8 THE HEADMASTER, CV LPS, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304., PIN - 695304 9 THE HEADMASTER SNV HSS, PANAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 145, PIN - 695145 10 SMT. REMA DEVI HSST (MALAYALAM) SSV GHSS, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 304, PIN - 695304 11 SMT. INDU KRISHNA LPSA SNV HSS, PANAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 145., PIN - 695145 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.SURYA BINOY, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 2[nd] day of June, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- _“(i) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be shifted against the regular vacancy of UPSA/LPSA w.e.f 04.06.2012 in preference to the 10[th] and 11[th] Respondents._ _(ii) call for Exhibits P-4 P-5.P-9.P-12 and P-13, P-18 and set aside the originals of the same to the extent it granted appointment and approval to 10[th] and 11[th] Respondents from 04.06.2012 onwards in preference to the Petitioner as UPSA/LPSA against permanent vacancy._ _(iii) call for Exhibit P-14 and set aside the original of the same to the extent it failed to consider the claim of the Petitioner for approval as UPSA against a permanent vacancy from 04.06.2012 in preference to the 10[th] Respondent._ _(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant appointment and approval to the Petitioner as UPSA against a permanent vacancy w.e.f 04.06.2012 in preference to 10[th] Respondent and consequential benefits there on._ W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 4 _(v) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to grant appointment and approval to the petitioner as LPSA against a permanent vacancy w.e.f 04.06.2012 in preference to the 11[th] Respondent and consequential benefits there on._ _(vi) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1[st] Respondent to take a decision on Exhibits P-7,P-8 and P-15 adverting to Exhibits P-6, P-20, P-21 and P-22 with notice to the Petitioner in a time bound manner._ _(vii) to dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced in the Writ Petition._ _(viii) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” (SIC)_ 2. The petitioner is challenging mainly Ext.P18 order passed by the Government in a revision filed by the petitioner. This Court perused Ext.P18. 3. When a revision under Rule 92 Chapter XIV A KER is considered, this is not the way in which a revision is to be disposed. This Court in _**Sudheer T. vs. M.V.Susheela and others (2009 (3) KHC 991)**_ considered this point and made certain observations. The observation is extracted hereunder:- W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 5 _“So, whatever be the nature of the jurisdiction, whether it be appellate or revisional, conferred on the Government, they must take the decision, as provided under Art.166 of the Constitution of India, read with the relevant Rules of Business.”_ 4. In the light of the same, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P18 is not a speaking order. I do not want to make any observation on merit and I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P18 can be set aside on the simple reason that it is not a speaking order and not in tune with the principle laid down by this Court in _**Sudheer T. vs. M.V.Susheela (supra).**_ Therefore, Ext.P18 can be set aside and there can be a direction to the Government to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P15 in the light of Exts.P6, P20, P21 and P22. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:- i) Ext.P18 is set aside. ii) The 1[st] respondent is directed to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P15, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 11 , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 6 iii) While deciding this matter, the 1[st] respondent also consider the applicability of Exts.P6, P20, P21 and P22. v) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17858/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P-1|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF| |---|---| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 01.06.2011| |Exhibit P-2|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 03.06.2013| |Exhibit P-3|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE| ||DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL| ||VIDE ORDER NO. B6/917/2021/DEO/D.DIS| ||DATED 12.03.2021| |Exhibit P-4|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF| ||SMT. INDU KRISHAN S DATED 01.06.2011| |Exhibit P-5|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE| ||ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VIDE| ||ORDER NO. 3/677/2020/D.DIS DATED| ||04.06.2020| |Exhibit P-6|TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.| ||275/99/G.EDN DATED 09.11.1999| |Exhibit P-7|TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE| ||GOVERNMENT DATED 29.06.2021| |Exhibit P-8|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT| ||DATED 25.12.2021| |Exhibit P-9|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF| ||THE 10TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2020| |Exhibit P-10|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT| ||EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL DATED| ||28.09.2020| |Exhibit P-11|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR| ||DATED 30.10.2020| W.P (C) No.17858 of 2023 8 - Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ET5/4658/2020/DGE/K.DIS DATED 05.11.2020 OF THE DIRECTOR - Exhibit P-13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6/3928/2020/DEO/D.DIS DATED 11.11.2020 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER - Exhibit P-14 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1761/2021/G.EDN DATED 19.02.2021 - Exhibit P-15 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 25.11.2021 - Exhibit P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. A1/191/2021/G.EDN - PART II DATED 02.02.2022 ADDRESSING THE DIRECTOR - Exhibit P-17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34643/2022 DATED 02.11.2022 - Exhibit P-18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A1/191/2021/G.EDN DATED 13.04.2023 OF THE GOVERNMENT - Exhibit P-19 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO. D.DIS/B/2054/2019 DATED 02.03.2020 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-13 FOR SANCTIONING THE ADDITIONAL VACANCY - ExhibitP-20 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 4002/2010/G.EDN DATED 14.09.2010 - Exhibit P-21 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2613/2018/G.EDN DATED 12.07.2018, - Exhibit P-22 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 3568/2019/G.EDN DATED 04.09.2019 - Exhibit P-23 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 4425/2009/G.EDN DATED 23.10.2009