High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-12Disposed of with directions as noted: quash Ext...

Manoj V. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2022-08-12
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: (a) Ext. P21 is quashed; (b) the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhs. P14 and P22 and pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing (physical or virtual) to the petitioner or his representative and the 5th respondent, in accordance with law; (c) such orders to be passed within four months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment; (d) petitioner may produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions as noted: quash Ext. P21; direct reconsideration of Exts. P14 and P22 with opportunity of hearing; pass fresh orders in four months; allow production of petition copy with judgment for further action.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manoj V.

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Director of General Education, Government of Kerala
The Deputy Director of Education, Thevally P.O., Kollam
The District Educational Officer, Kollam
The Manager, Mayyanad Higher Secondary School, Mayyanad P.O., Kollam-691 303
Smti. Nisha Bose, Sr. GP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shine N.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smti. Nisha Bose, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Manoj V., a 50-year-old HSA (Malayalam) at Mayyanad Higher Secondary School, filed WP(C) No. 26140 of 2022 challenging several government/school orders relating to the approval of his service spells (Exhibits P1–P4 establish his initial appointment; Exhibits P5–P7, P13, P20 relate to subsequent refusals). He contends that the revision petition filed by the Manager (Exhibit P14) and the government’s order (Exhibit P21) denying his rights were passed without due process, including a hearing, and seeks quashment of Exhibits P13, P20 and P21 and directions to reconsider P14 and P22 in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution and Kerala Education Rules. The petitioner relies on Sudheer v. M.V. Susheela and Others to argue that government orders in revision petitions must conform to constitutional provisions and established procedure. The learned Judge found that Ext. P21 was casually issued and not in proper conformity with law, and thus quashed it. The Court directed the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhs. P14 and P22, furnish hearing (physical or virtual), and pass fresh orders within four months, with liberty to produce copies of the writ petition along with the judgment for further action. The judgment emphasizes due process and adherence to statutory rules in executive revisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 166Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (Chapter XIV-A, Rule 92)Kerala Education Rules, 1959G.O. (P) No. 29/2016/G.EDN.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that his earlier appointment (Exh. P1) and subsequent spell-wise approvals (Exhs. P5, P7, P13, P20) were not properly disposed of, and that Ext. P21 (a government letter) was issued without an opportunity of hearing, rendering it illegal. He contends that the Manager’s revision petition (Exh. P14) and the challenge to the revision petitions (Exh. P22) require due process under Article 166 and the Kerala Education Rules, and seeks quashment of Exhs. P13, P20, P21 and directions to reconsider Exhs. P14 and P22 in light of the law and precedents, particularly Sudheer v. M.V. Susheela and Others.

Contentions of Respondents

The judgment record presents the petitioner’s contentions and the legal framework but does not provide a detailed separate argument section for the respondents. The court relies on established principles from precedents (including Sudheer v. M.V. Susheela and Others) to evaluate the legality and procedure of government revisions; no explicit respondent’s counter-argument is elaborated in the text provided.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sudheer v. M.V.Susheela and others	2009 (4) KLT 29	Positive	Cited to support the principle that government revisions must be disposed in accordance with Article 166 and rules of business, ensuring due process in executive orders.
Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others	2009 (4) KLT 29	Positive	Cited for principles on disposal of statutory appeals and revisions by the Government with adherence to constitutional provisions and procedural fairness.

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 Manoj V. v. State of Kerala and 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MANOJ V. AGED 50 YEARS S/O.N.VIJAYAN, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM- 691 303, RESIDING AT NIDHI, VAIDYASALA NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM -691 002. BY ADV SHINE N.S ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY P.O. KOLLAM- 691 009. 4THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM -691 013. 5THE MANAGER, MAYYANAD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 303. SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. G.P. THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON12.08.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that she was appointed as HSA (Malayalam) in the Mayyanad Higher Secondary School with effect from 01.06.2005 to 30.03.2009 in a leave vacancy as per Exhibit P1 order. In terms of the Exhibit P5 order issued by the Government, the applications submitted by the petitioner for approval on different spells were declined by Exhibit P7, P13, and Exhibit P20 orders. Challenging Exhibit P13 order, the 5th respondent Manager is stated to have preferred Exhibit P14 revision petition before the 1st respondent. The petitioner contends that without even affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein, Exhibit P21 order was passed by the 1st respondent. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing Exhibits P13, P20 and P21 and for further direction commanding the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit P14 revision petition and pass orders on Ext.P22 revision petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner herein is that Ext.P21 is illegal, as it is merely a letter issued by the concerned respondent. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in **Sudheer v.** ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` **M.V.Susheela and others[1]** to substantiate the contentions. The petitioner also contends that reiterating his contentions, he has preferred Exhibit P22 revision petition before the 1st respondent. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader and I have considered the submissions advanced. 5. Having considered the submissions, I find that the revision petition filed by the Manager has been casually rejected by Ext.P21, which is a letter issued by the Secretary to the Government to the petitioner. This Court, in **Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others[2]** has laid down the principles emphasizing the manner in which statutory appeals and revisions preferred by an aggrieved person before the Government are to be disposed of. This Court had emphatically held that whatever be the nature of jurisdiction, whether it be appellate or revisional, conferred on the Government, the decision has to be taken as provided under Article 166 of the Constitution of India read with the relevant rules of business. The impugned order will not satisfy the essentials of an executive order passed by the Government in a revision petition filed by an aggrieved > 1 [2009 (4) KLT 29] > 2 [2009 (4) KLT 29] ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` person. In that view of the matter, I am unable to sustain Ext.P21. In view of the order above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can be issued to the 1st respondent to reconsider Exts.P14 and P22 and take a decision in accordance with the law, adverting to the precedents cited by the petitioner in the writ petition. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: - a) Exhibit P21 order passed by the 1st respondent will stand quashed. - b) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit-P14 revision petition submitted by the Manager along with P22 revision petition submitted by the petitioner and pass orders afresh, as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized representative and the 5th respondent. - c) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` d) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action. **Sd/-** # **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** avs ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26140/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO:2/05-06 DATED 01/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO:B5/6568/05/K.DIS. DATED 30/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 27/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND ITS APPROVAL ORDER NO:65/2680/09/K.DIS. DATED 17/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 02/06/2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO:B5/4391/14/K.DIS. DATED 30/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE G.O.(P)NO:29/2016/G.EDN. DATED 29/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 01/09/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P4 ORDER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:B3/18830/2016/K.DIS. DATED 03/02/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:GEDN-J3/182/2017-G.EDN. DATED 05/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` - `Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:B5/2942/18/K.DIS. DATED 05/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:B5/4636/18/K.DIS. DATED 11/04/2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: E.T(1)/4937/2019/D.P.I. DATED 02/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 02/09/2019 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT. P13 UNDER CHAPTER XIV-A RULE-92 OF K.E.R. BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:B1/11782/2019(2) DATED 30/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:B1/11782/2019 (2) DATED 24/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: H2/19500/2019/D.G.E. DATED 06/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/04/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:DDEKLM/12335/2021-B3 DATED 12/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:E3/215/2019-G.EDN DATED 15/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` ``` WP(C) NO. 26140 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Exhibit P22 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 10/01/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CHAPTER-1, RULE-3 OF THE KERALA EDUCATION RULES 1959 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. ```