Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
The Corporate Educatinal Agency vs The State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5802 of 2009(U)


1. THE CORPORATE EDUCATINAL AGENCY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. K.S.PETER WILLIAMS,KALATHI VEETTIL HOUSE

5. M.F.MARY BETSY, L.P.S.A,ST.ANTONY U.P.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :29/01/2010

 O R D E R
                          S.SIRI JAGAN,J
             =========================
                     W.P.(C).No.5802 of 2009
            ==========================
             Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Corporate Educational Agency owning

several educational institutions. By virtue of previous approved

appointment, the 4th respondent acquired a claim under Rule

51A of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. He raised a complaint that he

has not been given preferential appointment in a vacancy which

has arisen in the school. A litigation arose, which resulted in

Ext.P14 of the Government whereby the 4th respondent was

directed to be accommodated in a vacancy in St.Antony’s U.P.S.,

Palluruthy under the management of the petitioner. The

petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that because of

the acute mental disorder of the 4th respondent, it would be not

in the interests of the school and the students to appoint him,

even if he has a claim under Rule 51A. The 4th respondent would

dispute the contention on the ground that a Medical Board has

cleared the petitioner and therefore the contention of the

petitioner cannot be accepted. However, now, it is submitted by

the parties that the 4th respondent has been accommodated in a

W.P.(C).No.5802/2009
2

subsequent vacancy in another school under the petitioner-

management, which appointment has also been approved by the

educational authority. The 4th respondent is satisfied with the

same. The 5th respondent submits that she was appointed in the

vacancy to which the 4th respondent laid claim and because of

the dispute raised by the 4th respondent, her appointment has

not been approved. She submits that now that the 4th

respondent’s appointment in another school has been duly

approved, there cannot be any objection in approving the

appointment of the 5th respondent. But the learned counsel for

the 4th respondent pointed out that such approval can only be

subject to the claim regarding the seniority of the 4th respondent,

since the 4th respondent is entitled to preferential appointment

ahead of the 5th respondent and therefore, the 5th respondent’s

appointment can be approved only subject to the seniority of the

4th respondent.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

recording the fact that the 4th respondent has been

accommodated in another vacancy in another school which has

been approved and directing the 3rd respondent to consider the

W.P.(C).No.5802/2009
3

question of approval of the the 5th respondent’s appointment

taking into account the claim of the 4th respondent for seniority

over the 5th respondent in the matter of appointment. The same

shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.179 seconds.