High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-01-20Writ petition disposed of as above.

Renjith Gopi v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33292 of 2011 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2014-01-20
Court Decision / Holding: Exts.P21 and P22, to the extent they approve the petitioner’s appointment from 27-08-2009, are quashed. The petitioner is allowed to submit a detailed representation before the fourth respondent within 30 days. The fourth respondent shall consider and dispose of the representation on merits in light of the ruling in 2013 (2) KLT 88 (DB) as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within two months from the receipt, after affording the petitioner a hearing. The judgment directs reconsideration of the petitioner’s entitlement to backdated, regularized approval.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjith Gopi, S/O K.G. Gopi, High School Assistant (Malayalam), S N D P Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam, Alappuzha-688501

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government General Education Department, Secretariat Trivandrum-695011
Director of Public Instruction, Jagathy, Trivandrum-695014
Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha-688001
District Educational Officer, Kuttanad at Ramankary, Alappuzha District-689596
Manager, S N D P Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam, Alappuzha District-688501
Headmistress, S N D P Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam Alappuzha District-688501

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V.A. Muhammed
• Sri K.E. Hamza

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.M. Saneer (Senior Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns Renjith Gopi, a High School Assistant (Malayalam) at S N D P Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam, Alappuzha, who challenges the non-approval of his appointment from 05-06-2006 onward. The petitioner contends that his regular vacancy appointment should have been approved by the competent educational authorities, since the later developments—an appointment of a protected teacher in 2009 and subsequent approvals—do not negate the petitioner’s entitlement to approval from the initial appointment date. The respondents argued that an approved vacancy could only be filled if a protected teacher was appointed by the manager, and that the earlier approvals were restricted to daily wage or shorter-term arrangements; Exts.P21 and P22 purportedly limited approval to 27-08-2009. The court, after hearing, found substance in the petitioner’s argument that the manager need not have appointed a protected teacher, citing a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala v. Nadeera, and directed reconsideration by the fourth respondent in light of that ruling. Exts.P21 and P22 were quashed to the extent they grant approval only from 27-08-2009. The petitioner may submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the fourth respondent is to dispose of it on merits within two months after hearing, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his appointment as H.S.A. (Malayalam) from 05-06-2006 should be approved. He argues that there was no list of protected teachers available to the manager and relies on the Division Bench ruling in State of Kerala v. Nadeera to contend that educational authorities are bound to approve the appointment, with Exts.P21 and P22 only extending approval from 27-08-2009 having to be quashed. He seeks reconsideration by the fourth respondent after a formal representation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that approval cannot be granted unless a protected teacher was appointed to the vacancy by the manager; they rely on government orders and the requirement of a protected appointment, arguing that Exts.P21 and P22 reflecting 27-08-2009 approval adhered to this principle.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala v. Nadeera	2013 (2) KLT 88 (DB)	Positive	The High Court expressly relies on the Division Bench ruling to justify reconsideration and to support the petitioner’s claim that the authority must evaluate the approval in light of that 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 Renjith Gopi 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 BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/30TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 33292 of 2011 (J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: - --------------- RENJITH GOPI, S/O.K.G.GOPI, AGED 28 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) S N D P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAMANGALAM ALAPPUZHA-688 501. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM-695 011. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUTTANAD AT RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 596. 5. THE MANAGER, S N D P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAMANGALAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN 688 501. 6. THE HEADMISTRESS, S N D P HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTAMANGALAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688 501. R1-R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33292 of 2011 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER 05.06.2006. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F/2589/06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT 25.08.2006. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE MANAGER 22.09.2006. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/20144/06/K.DIS.OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 29.11.2006. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE MANAGER 31.01.2007. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET2/8358/07/DPI/K.DIS.OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2007. EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE MANAGER 02.08.2007. EXHIBIT-P8. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.12960/E3/2008/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT 26.05.2008. EXHIBIT-P9. TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES 08.07.2008. EXHIBIT-P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.63/07/2007 OF THE MANAGER 29.05.2007. EXHIBIT-P11. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4/3177/08 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR 18.03.2008. EXHIBIT-P12. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.3587/2008/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT 05.08.2008. EXHIBIT-P13. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.3805/06/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT 26.08.2006. EXHIBIT-P14. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3155/07/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT 10.07.2007. EXHIBIT-P15. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM (6)/13136/06/DPI/K.DIS.OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT 23.02.2008. EXHIBIT-P16. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.2563/2008-E 24.09.2008. EXHIBIT-P17. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12960/E3/08/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT 27.02.2009. EXHIBIT-P18. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.10943/2009-K 03.04.2009. EXHIBIT-P19. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.12960/E3/08/G.EDN. OF THE GOVT. 31.07.2009. CONTD..2.. WP(C).No. 33292 of 2011 (J) EXHIBIT-P20. TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT-P21. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.1014/2010/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT 08.03.2010. EXHIBIT-P22. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF. 05.06.2006/30.03.2010. EXHIBIT-P23. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDDR R.I. ACT 14.06.2010. EXHIBIT-P24. TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OF THE HEADMISTRESS ALONG WITH THE AUDIT REPORT 01.07.2010/30.03.2010. EXHIBIT-P25. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F/242/10 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT 20.01.2011. EXHIBIT-P26. TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAM RECEIPT 18.12.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R3(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN GO (MS) 178/02/G.EDN DATED 28/06/02. EXT.R3(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) 169/04/G.Edn DATED 15/06/04. EXT.R3(c):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) 46/2006/G.Edn dated 01/06/2006. **..........** ## **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.** ------------------------------------------------ W. P. (C) No.33292 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of January, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of his appointment as High School Assistant (Malayalam) from 05-06-2006 onwards or not. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. No representation for the respondents 5 and 6 despite serving notice on them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to a regular vacancy of High School Assistant (Malayalam) on 05-06-2006 in the fifth respondent school. That appointment has not been approved on the ground that to that vacancy a protected teacher should have been appointed by the manager. Later, a protected teacher has been appointed on 27-08-2009 in that school. W. P. (C) No.33292 of 2011 -2- Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner has been approved with effect from 27-08-2009. Later, as per Ext.P25 order of the fourth respondent, his appointment from 27-08-2009 to 31-03-2010 was approved only on daily wages on the ground that the duration of that appointment was only less than one academic year. By that order, his appointment was approved with effect from 01-06-2010 on a regular basis. The petitioner continues in the regular establishment of the school on that basis. The respondents 1 to 4 cannot raise a contention that the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (Malayalam) from 05-06-2006 onwards cannot be approved on the ground that a protected teacher was not appointed by the manager to that vacancy. There was no list of protected teachers available with the manager as sent to him by the competent educational authority at that time. Therefore, relying on the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Nadeera [2013 (2) KLT 88 (DB)], the learned counsel further submits that the manager was not bound to appoint a protected teacher in W. P. (C) No.33292 of 2011 -3- such a circumstance and the educational authorities are bound to approve the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A. (Malayalam) with effect from 05-06-2006. Having heard both the sides, this Court is of the considered view that the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has substance. Therefore, the fourth respondent educational officer has to reconsider the matter in the light of the ruling of this Court reported in 2013 (2) KLT 88 (DB) for which the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation raising his case before that authority. Exts.P21 and P22, to the extent they approve the appointment of the petitioner only with effect from 27-08-2009, are liable to be quashed. 4. In the result, Exts.P21 and P22, to the extent they approve the appointment of the petitioner only with effect from 27-08-2009, are quashed. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a detailed representation raising his contentions before the fourth respondent within thirty days from today. If such a representation is received, the fourth W. P. (C) No.33292 of 2011 -4- respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law in the light of the ruling of this Court reported in 2013 (2) KLT 88 (DB) as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of that representation. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the fourth respondent before disposing of such representation. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this Writ Petition before the fourth respondent for compliance. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE W. P. (C) No.33292 of 2011 -5-