ANU JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13 and P15 orders and for a further direction to respondents 1 to 5 to permit the petitioner to continue as LPSA without any interruption with effect from 1/6/2017 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was working as LPSA in the school under the management of 4th respondent corporate educational agency. She was a nun attached to the Congregation of the Mother of Carmel (CMC). Due to personal reasons, she requested to dispense her from religious vows and obligations and her request was accepted by the church authorities as is evident from Ext.P1 Rescript dtd. 7/6/2017. Petitioner who was fully qualified, was appointed as LPSA as per Ext.P2 order of appointment dtd. 1/6/2015 and the same was duly approved by the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer as per order dtd. 9/1/2017. It is the contention of the petitioner that her salary and allowances were being collected by the 4th respondent and the petitioner was unaware about the salary and allowances being paid into the account created in her name. A perusal of Ext.P3 duplicate pass book issued by the Agaly branch of the State Bank of India reveals that huge amounts were collected by the 4th respondent from her account and no amount was given to her. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 used to obtain signature of the petitioner on blank cheque leaves and thus misappropriated all the amounts in her account. When the petitioner requested for dispensing her from the religious vows and obligations, the church authorities including the 4th respondent raised stiff resistance and when the petitioner persisted with her request, they exerted undue pressure and influence on her so as to coerce her in submitting a resignation letter. Petitioner had no other way but to sign the resignation letter dtd. 27/4/2017 as directed by them. Petitioner was also made to believe that her appointment did not have the approval of the department as she was not a K-TET qualified candidate and that another qualified teacher ought to be appointed in the school. Petitioner submits that the said resignation letter has been obtained under pressure and threat and by mis-representation of facts. Petitioner also submits that she never intended to resign from service and she was ready and willing to work as a teacher. Petitioner submits that till her resignation is accepted by the departmental authorities, she has every right to withdraw from the same. To substantiate the same, petitioner relies on Rules 48 and 53 of Chapter XIVA KER which specifically mandates among other things that a teacher shall not himself terminate his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment without the permission of the educational authorities. Petitioner submits that the said legal position has been settled by the judgment of this Court in Hyderali v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 763), Moideenkutty Haji v. State (1981 KHC 473) and Ushakumari V.S. v. State of Kerala and others (2019 KHC 2805). By Ext.P5 letter, the 4th respondent informed the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 resignation letter and that the 4th respondent had accepted the same and therefore requested for permission to make a fresh appointment. The 3rd respondent by Ext.P6 letter informed the petitioner and the 4th respondent that he propose to conduct a hearing on the issue of the alleged resignation of the petitioner. The 4th respondent Manager did not turn up for the hearing but deputed a representative. The petitioner attended the meeting and submitted Ext.P8 representation in which she explained the circumstances under which she was forced to submit Ext.P4 letter of resignation and requested to take necessary steps so as to enable her to continue with the employment. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P9 letter to the 4th respondent calling for her explanation with regard to the submission made by the petitioner that Ext.P4 was forcefully obtained from her. There was no response from the side of the 4th respondent to Ext.P9 letter issued by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner was reporting before respondents 4 and 5 to resume duty, but she was prevented from doing so. Thereafter, petitioner submitted Exts.P10 and P11 requests before respondents 3 and 4 to permit her to continue on duty and Ext.P10 was duly received by the 4th respondent as is evident from Ext.P12 postal acknowledgment card. Petitioner being aggrieved by the denial of employment approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.41166 of 2017 and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent considered the matter and issued Ext.P13 order whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, Ext.P14 statutory revision was filed before the Government but the same was also rejected as per Ext.P15 order dtd. 1/7/2019. Petitioner submits that respondents 4 and 5 have no authority to keep the petitioner away from duty as the educational authorities have not granted approval to Ext.P4 resignation letter which was forcefully obtained from her and the same was later withdrawn also. All these aspects are discernible from her subsequent conduct of submitting Exts.P10 and P11 requests and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner has submitted her resignation letter dtd. 27/4/2017 before the 4th respondent. But Ext.P5 proposal of the 4th respondent dtd. 3/6/2017 for approval of the same was received in the office of the 3rd respondent only on 13/10/2017. After hearing the parties, the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P13 order approved the resignation of the petitioner and the action of the 4th respondent in having accepted Ext.P4 resignation letter. The petitioner was working in Govt.UPS, Thamarasseri on daily wages from 12/6/2017 to 30/11/2017 after submission of Ext.P4 resignation letter.