Sreehari K. vs Department Of General Education

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The petitioner states that by Ext.P6 appointment order dated 15.7.2021, the petitioner herein was appointed to the post of UPST in the BVUP School, Chundampatta, an aided school managed by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent forwarded the appointment order along with the application for approval of the petitioner and had submitted the necessary declaration, as is evident from Exts.P7 and P7(a). The grievance of the petitioner is that no action is being taken on the same. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

"i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to approve/confirm Exhibit-P6 appointment order of the petitioner,

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit-P7 and Exhibit-P7(a) within a specific time frame."

Sri.Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to expeditiously consider Exhibits-P7 and P7(a) in an expeditious manner with due notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner was implicated as the sole accused in Crime No.559 of 2019 of the Peramangalam Police Station alleging commission of the offences inter alia under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC. The fact that he was involved in a crime was truly and correctly disclosed by him in the declaration dated 15.7.2021. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings by filing Crl.M.C.No.2891/2020 which petition is pending before this Court. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], it is contended that in cases wherein the involvement in the crime is truly and correctly disclosed, the employer in the facts and circumstances may appoint the candidate subject to the decision of such case.

Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned senior Government pleader submitted that the petitioner herein has arrayed the Assistant Educational Officer, Thrithala, as the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the direction will have to be issued to the AEO, Pattambi. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent had noted certain defects in the application and had duly informed the Manager concerned. According to the learned Government Pleader, the DGE has issued specific directions to the AEO concerned to take a decision on or before 24.09.2021.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Government pleader, the AEO, Pattambi, Palakkad is suo motu impleaded as additional 6th respondent. The learned Government pleader shall take notice. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for, notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with.

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions made by the petitioner, there will be a direction to the additional 6th respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P7(a), as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative as well as the 5th respondent.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, on or before 24.9.2021 as undertaken by the learned Government Pleader based on instructions.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.