IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16692 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- JAISAMMA T.C., OZHUKAYIL HOUSE, MARAKKADAV P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, ST. THOMAS U.P. SCHOOL, PERIKKALLOOR P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.T.SHEEBA FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.16692/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT.30.5.07 ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF ST.THOMAS U.P.SCHOOL. EXT.P2: COPY OF LEAVE LETTER WITH ENDORSEMENT OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE HEADMISTRESS DT.24.5.06. EXT.P3: COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DT.2.6.07 ISSUED by the PETITIONER'S COUNSEL SRI K.M.MANOJ TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF REPLY DT.18.6.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(A); COPY OF ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT RECOGNITION TO THE ST.THOMAS UP SCHOOL BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(B); COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GETTING APPOINTMENT FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2004-05. EXT.R2(C); COPY OF TEACHERS' ATTENDANCE REGISTER FROM DECEMBER 1997 TO MARCH 1999. EXT.R2(D): COPY OF GO.DT.30.9.99. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dsn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16692 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT In the Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the 2nd respondent-Management to reinstate the petitioner. A further direction is sought to pay the petitioner salary for the period for which the petitioner was, allegedly, illegally kept out of service. 2. The school is an unaided, recognised one. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been working in the school for different periods and had sought leave for one year from 24.5.2006. On 10.5.2007, even though the petitioner reached the school for joining duty, she was not permitted. Exhibit P3 is the copy of the lawyer notice sent by her and Exhibit P4 is the reply given by the Manager. The stand taken in Exhibit P4 is that teachers are appointed every year and they are not permanent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the retrenchment is without any justification and an enquiry will have to be conducted. W.P.(C)No.16692/08 -2- 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is contended that no Writ Petition will lie against the 2nd respondent as it is only an unaided, recognised school and the petitioner was not a permanent teacher of the school. 5. It is pointed out that the school obtained permanent recognition by Exhibit R2(a) order dated 21.10.2005 and prior to 21.10.2005 there was no permanent appointment at all. The teachers of the school are temporarily appointed for an academic year starting from June and ending in March of every academic year. Therefore the claim of the petitioner that she was a regular teacher itself is disputed by the management. They have also produced copy of the application submitted by the petitioner for the year 2004-05. 6. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the school is run by a minority community in Wynad district and is in a remote area. 7. Evidently, the petitioner submitted an application for leave in 2006 for a period of one year. There is no case that the leave was sanctioned. Apart from that going by the pleadings of the Management, the petitioner is not a permanent employee. W.P.(C)No.16692/08 -3- In the light of the above, this Court will not be justified in issuing a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner and the Writ Petition is dismissed. But, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the 2nd respondent or the Parish for any re-engagement. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn