RIYAS K.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner says that he was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in the AUP School, Thannikkadavu with effect from 01.06.2016, by the fourth respondent - Manager; and he impugns Ext.P9 order of the Government, as per which, the staff fixation order of the school, as proposed by the Manager, has been denied approval, resultant to which his appointment has been found to be irregular.

(2.) The petitioner says that Ext.P9 order has been issued by the Government on a Revision filed by the Manager under the provisions of Rule 92 Chapter XIV A of the KER and alleges that it has been disposed of without taking note of relevant and necessary factors. He asserts that even though Ext.P9 has culminated from the Revision filed by the Manager, the Government ought to have given him an opportunity of being heard before issuing it, because he is finally the person who is most affected by the said order.

(3.) In addition to the above, Sri.K.A.Manzoor Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has produced on record Exts.P11 to P15 documents, which would clearly show that, in similar circumstances, this Court and the Government have issued certain judgments and orders and that had these been taken into account by the Government, Ext.P9 order would not have been issued. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that Ext.P9 be set aside and the Government be directed to reconsider the Revision of the Manager, after affording his client also an opportunity of being heard.