Anoop N.M. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/8TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10312 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- ANOOP N.M.

HSA MALAYALAM, MES HSS, IRIMBILIYAM VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENEREAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676505.

4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, MES SCHOOLS, MES OFFICE, BANK ROAD CALICUT-673001.

R1-R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT A LOWSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 10312 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 6-6-2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7-8-2013. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11-10-2013 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-2-2014 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 10312 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3 and P4, by which the approval granted was withdrawn for reason of the 4th respondent Manager having not appointed a protected teacher. The petitioner was appointed as HSA(Malayalam) in a newly created post in 2005-06 on 06.06.2005. The petitioner's approval was also granted. However, subsequently after eight years, by Ext.P2, the same was withdrawn on the ground that even if a protected hand was not available in the district, the Manager ought to have appointed a protected teachers from a nearby district. The issue is covered by a judgment of this Court reported in Moosakutty v. D.E.O., Wandoor [2009 (3) KLT 863] . In such circumstance, nothing remains to be considered in the writ petition. Following the above binding precedent, Exts.P2, P3 and P4 are set aside. The petitioner's approval shall be regularised.

Writ petition stands allowed.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge jma