Naseera M vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“I. To issue Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or Order to quash Exts. P2, & P4 as they are illegal and unjustifiable.

II. To  issue  a  writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as LPST from 05/10/2019 onwards in terms of the additional directions issued in Ext.P6 Judgment and to disburse all consequential benefits due to her forthwith.

III. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get approval from the date of her appointment in the light of Judgment dated 13/03/2023 in W.A. No. 1602/2022 (Ext.P5 & P6) and connected cases.

IV. To dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents.

V. To grant such other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” (sic)

The petitioner is a teacher working in PMSAPTS VHSS, Kaikkottukadavu as Lower Primary School Teacher with effect from 05.10.2019 onwards. Her appointment was rejected by Ext. P2 order stating that 4th respondent did not appoint protected hands in the school under 1:1 ratio. Though the 4th respondent filed appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 order directing the 3rd respondent to review her appointment in the light of existing Government orders, it is submitted that the same was not properly considered by the 3rd respondent and issued Ext.P4 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner after about 18 months of Ext.P3, holding that her appointment is after 08.11.2018. It is submitted that as per the Judgment dated 10.08.2022 in WP(C) No. 19808/2021 back log vacancies have to be filled up before granting approval to the pending cases and such appointments should be considered only after filling up of the vacancies suitable for disabled persons, which is against Ext.P6 Judgment. In the light of Ext.P6 Judgment, the appointment of the petitioner is to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent, is the submission. Hence this writ petition.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through direction No.1 in Ext.P6 judgment and submitted that the petitioner’s appointment is to be approved. The Government Pleader submitted that since Ext.P6 is a judgment subsequent to Ext.P4 order, this Court can direct the District Educational Officer to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P6.

After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 can be set aside and the 3rd respondent can be directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of the direction No.1 in Ext.P6 judgment.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

Ext.P4 is set aside.

The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of direction No.1 in Ext.P6 judgment, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The petitioner will produce a stamped certified copy of this judgment together with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance.

Needless to say that if the approval is granted, consequential benefits also to be disbursed forthwith.