← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/5388/2015disposed of

A V Najumuneessa v. State Of Kerala

2015-02-20Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5388 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- A V NAJUMUNEESSA AGED 52 YEARS W/O MUHAMMAD, ARABIC TEACHER THENUR AIDED JUNIOR BASIC SCHOOL, PARALI PO PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ARAKKAL HOUSE, PARALI PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 612 BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - I 2.

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - I 3.

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, PARALI P.O.

PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 612 4.

THE MANAGER, THENUR AIDED JUNIOR BASIC SCHOOL PARALI PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 612 R1 TO R3 BY SRI V.VIJULAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 5388 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1 :

COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.1587/2011/D DT.28.09.2013 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P2 :

COPY OF ORDER NO.G1/72463/2013/DPI/K.DIS DT.03.12.2013 P3 :

COPY OF REVISION PETITION SENT BY THE REVISION PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5388 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules. She was working as Arabic Teacher from 01.06.2011 onwards. According to the petitioner, her appointment was not approved by the 3rd respondent on the ground that there is management dispute with respect to the school and her appointment has been made by an unapproved manager. Consequently, the 3rd respondent, Assistant Education Officer and the 2nd respondent, Director of Public Instructions rejected the petitioner's claim for approval of appointment. The petitioner claims that the appointment is in a retirement vacancy.

2. The learned Government Pleader points out that there is no sanctioned post and so the authorities rejected the approval.

3.

The petitioner has already approached the Government by filing Ext.P3 revision petition. In view of the above, the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3

W.P.(C) No. 5388 of 2015 revision petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of.

SD/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE