High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-02-22Writ petition allowed; Exts.P6-P9 set aside; di...

Radhika V.S. and others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 31753 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-02-22
Court Decision / Holding: Exts. P6 to P9 are set aside. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to reconsider the proposal for approving the petitioners’ appointments, in light of the principle laid down in Ext.P10, if the proposal is otherwise in order, de hors the reasons in Exts.P6 to P9, within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment. If approval is granted, the competent respondents will disburse the consequential benefits forthwith. The petitioners must produce certified copies of this judgment and the petition before respondents 4 and 5 for compliance.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Exts.P6-P9 set aside; directions to reconsider approvals; benefits to be disbursed if approved; comply with judgment copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Radhika V.S.
Nishakumari K.G.
Cinimol Prabhakaran
Vinitha S.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of General Education, Office of the Director of General Education, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Education, Office of the Deputy Director Education, Kodiveedu, Alappuzha
The Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Chengannur, Kerala
The District Educational Officer, Krishnakripa, Cherthala, Kerala
The Manager, Higher Secondary School, Kannamangalam, Kadakarappally, Cherthala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Mohanakannan
• H. Praveen (Kottarakkara)

Counsels for Respondents

• Navaneeth D. Pai
• Surya Binoy, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No. 31753 of 2022), filed in the High Court of Kerala, challenges Exts. P6 to P9, which rejected the petitioners’ proposals for approval of their appointments as teachers in a Higher Secondary School on the ground that there was no approved manager after the manager’s term expired on 17.06.2020. The four petitioners—Radhika V.S., Nishakumari K.G., Cinimol Prabhakaran, and Vinitha S.—were appointed to various HSST/HST posts between 2020 and 2021, and sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the impairing orders and to direct the respondents to approve their appointments and grant service benefits within a timeframe to be fixed by the court. The petition contends that reliance on the absence of an approved manager is misplaced, citing Kerala Court precedents Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala (1997) 2 KLT 725 and Manager, St. Mary’s H.S. v. Beji Abraham (2002) 1 KLT 406, which recognize a de facto doctrine protecting appointees who have acted under a manager’s tenure. Ext.P10 (the court’s earlier judgment) is relied upon by the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader appeared. The High Court, interpreting the de facto doctrine and extant precedents, set aside Exts. P6–P9 and directed respondents 4 and 5 to reconsider the approvals de hors those reasons, if otherwise in order, and to disburse benefits if approved. The court ordered compliance with certified copies of the judgment and petition.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

De facto doctrine
Rights of appointees not to be negated by later illegality or irregularities in managerial tenure

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that Exts. P6 to P9 were unjust and unsustainable as the rejection of their appointment proposals was solely based on the absence of an approved manager. Citing Padmanabhan Nambiar and Beji Abraham, they urged that the de facto manager’s actions and tenure should not erase the rights of those appointed during that period. They urged the court to set aside Exts. P6 to P9 and to direct the respondents to approve the appointments and grant service benefits, exercising the court’s jurisdiction to ensure equity and to avoid penalizing the petitioners for administrative lacunae beyond their control.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the approvals could not be granted in the absence of an approved manager and that Exts. P6 to P9 accurately reflected the position. They contended that the management’s legal vacuum necessitated a cautious approach; however, the court noted the prior precedents (Padmanabhan Nambiar and Beji Abraham) and allowed reconsideration of the matter with due regard to the de facto doctrine.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Government of Kerala	1997 (2) KLT 725	Positive	Used to support the de facto doctrine that rights of appointees are not automatically negated by later illegality/irregularity in managerial appointments.
Manager, St. Mary’s H.S. v. Beji Abraham	2002 (1) KLT 406	Positive	Affirms the de facto doctrine; supports the petitioners’ position that tenure-based actions by a manager can preserve appointee rights.
W.P.(C). No. 26917/2022	26917/2022	Mentioned Only	Referenced via Ext.P10 judgment as part of the chain of authority guiding the reasoning, not directly relied upon in the current decision.

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 Radhika V.S. and others 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, ``` ## **`1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 31753 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 RADHIKA V.S. AGED 45 YEARS W/O.SAJIMON, HSST(MALAYALAM) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANDAMANGALAM, KADAKARAPPALLY PO, CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT PRIYANANDANAM, KADAKKARAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 529.` - `2 NISHAKUMARI K.G., HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIAL SCIENCE) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANDAMANGALAM, KADAKARAPPALLY PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 529 .` - `3 CINIMOL PRABHAKARAN, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (MALAYALAM ) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANDAMANGALAM, KADAKARAPPALLY PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 529.` - `4 VINITHA S., HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (HINDI) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANDAMANGALAM, KADAKARAPPALLY PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 529. BY ADVS.` - `K.MOHANAKANNAN` - `H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.` - `3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,` 2- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 ``` OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION, KODIVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA, 688001. ``` - `4 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENGANNUR, KERALA -689121.` - `5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KRISHNAKRIPA, CHERTHALA, KERALA -688524.` - `6 THE MANAGER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNAMANGALAM, KADAKARAPPALLY, CHERTHALA-688 529. BY ADV NAVANEETH D.PAI` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== W.P.(C) No. 31753 of 2022 ============================================================= Dated this the 22[nd ] day of February, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: _“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 to P9 and quash the same;_ _ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the Respondents 4 and 5 to approve the appointment of the Petitioners made as per Ext.P1 to P5 and to grant all service benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court_ _iii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;_ _iv) To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.” (sic)_ 2. The 1[st] petitioner was appointed as HSST (Malayalam) on 15.06.2020, the 2[nd] petitioner was promoted as HST (Social Science) on 15.7.2021 and the 3[rd] petitioner was appointed as HST (Malayalam) on 15.07.2021 and the 4[th] petitioner was 4- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 appointed as HST (Hindi) with effect from 31.03.2020. Exts.P1 to P5 are the orders. The proposal for approving the appointments have been rejected solely for the reason that the term of the manager expired on 17.06.2020 and no new approved manager is available. Exts.P6 to P9 are the orders rejecting the proposal for approval. It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the judgments of this Court in **Padmanabhan Nambiar v.Government of Kerala** [1997 (2) KLT 725] and **Manager, St.Mary’s H.S. v. Beji Abraham** [2002(1) KLT 406], which is followed in Ext.P10 judgment, the stand in Exts.P6 to P9 will not sustain. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. 4. It is an admitted fact that the term of the manager of the school, in which the petitioners are working, is expired on 17.06.2020. The appointments are rejected only on the reason that there is no approved manager. This Court considered this 5- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 point in **Padmanabhan Nambiar’s case** (Supra) and also in **Beji Abraham’s case** (Supra). Relying these two judgments, this Court issued Ext.P10 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P10 judgment here: _“3. I find from the records that the petitioners herein were appointed by the 5th respondent while he was acting as the Manager SNDSY UPS. The proposal for approval stands rejected by Exts.P1 and P2 orders holding that the approval of Sri. Rajesh R., as the Manager in terms of the provisions of the bye-law was for a period of three years, and his tenure has expired. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioners are not qualified for the post of LPST or the UPST, as the case may be. It is also not borne out from the records that the 5[th] respondent has been interdicted either by the educational authorities or by a court of law from functioning as the Manager. In_ _**Manager St. Mary’s HSS v. Beji Abraham** [2002 (1) KLT 406], this Court had occasion to hold that the mere fact that the appointment of the Manager was subsequently found to be illegal or irregular could not take away the rights of the appointees. Applying the principle of de facto doctrine, it was held that the action taken by him during the tenure of his managership would not be irregular or illegal. In Padmanabhan Nambiar v. Govt. of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 725), the very same principles were reiterated. It appears that while considering the proposal and by rejecting the same by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the 4[th]_ 6- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 _respondent had not considered the matter in the light of the principles laid down in the judgments above. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference.”_ 5. In the light of the same, according to me, Exts.P6 to P9 will not stand. The 4[th] and 5[th] respondents have to reconsider the matter _de hors_ the reason in Exts.P6 to P9, if the proposal is otherwise in order. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Exts.P6 to P9 are set aside. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to reconsider the proposal for approving the appointment of the petitioners, in the light of the principle laid down in Ext.P10 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents 4 and 5 will approve the appointment, if it is otherwise in order, _de hors_ the reason mentioned in Exts.P6 to P9. 7- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 3. If the approval is granted, competent among respondents 4 and 5 will disburse the consequential benefits to the petitioners, forthwith. 4. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment together with a copy of this writ petition before the respondents 4 and 5 for compliance. **sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das 8- W.P.(C). No. 31753 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31753/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` - `Exhibit P2` - `TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 15-6-2020.` - `TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 15.7.2021.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.A4/4050/2020/DDE DATED 24-8-2020 .` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COP OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A4/5754/2020/DDE 24.8.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.M1/2020 DATED 15-6-2020 OF THE MANAGER.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS` - `NO.3951/C8/2020/RDD/CNGR SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT, MANAGER DATED 30-3-2022 .` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.B1216358/2021 DATED 27.5.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE THE PROCEEDING NO.B6 30305/2021 DATED 2-11-2021 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.B1216360/2021 DATED 27-5-2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.26917/2022 DATED 22-082022.`