NISHA RENJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned review petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6322 of 2016 seeking to review the judgment dated 26.11.2019, whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order passed by the State Government under the Kerala Education Rules (KER) upholding the decision of the respondent management withdrawing the proposal put forth for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner claimed the benefits of Rules 43, 51A, and 51B of KER, the same was held to be not sustainable.

(2.) The contention put forth by the review petitioner in the review is that this Court has committed error by a finding entered in paragraph 2 of the judgment that the review petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in St. Clare Oral School for the Deaf, Kalady, Ernakulam District on daily wage basis from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 and in regular vacancy from 01.06.2011 to 18.06.2013 and the same is factually incorrect as can be seen from mere perusal of Exhibit P1 order. Yet another contention advanced is that the findings entered in paragraph 17 that the manager has challenged the order of the Director of Public Instructions and the Government has interfered with the same and therefore, the proposition of law laid down in the said decision may not have much relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case, are factually incorrect. Accordingly, it is contended that in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 and from Exhibit R3(c) revision petition, it would be evident that there was no challenge against Exhibit P3 order and Exhibit R4 (c) revision was filed only against Exhibit P11 order. That apart, it is submitted that the judgment in Swayamprabha v. State of Kerala reported in [1981 KLT SN 93 (C. No. 166) relied on by the review petitioner to canvass the proposition that the power of aided school manager under Rule 48 of Chapter XIV-A of KER to terminate the service of a teacher before the expiry of the term of appointment was not appreciated by this court.

(3.) I have heard Sri. M.R. Anison learned counsel appeared the review petitioner, learned Government Pleader and Adv. Sri. Brijesh Mohan appeared for the management, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.