IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3385 of 2009(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- P.K.SAJEENA, W/O. ABDUL RAHIM, AGED MANGALASSERY HOUSE, THAMARAKULAM PO ALAPPUZHA , NOW RESIDING AT BLK-10, BLD-216/4, ST-SULAIMAN AL ADSANI, SALMIYA , KUWAIT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MAVELIKKARA. 3. THE MANAGER A.G.R.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN FOR R3 SRI.V.V.MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.R.SRINATH FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3385 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.B.Ragunathan, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner is a teacher. She was initially appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the third respondent's school. That appointment was approved. Later, when a leave vacancy of Upper Primary School Assistant arose in the school, the petitioner was reappointed in that leave vacancy with effect from 02.06.2008 in recognition of her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. According to the petitioner, the Manager did not forward the formal order of appointment to the District Educational Officer for approval. The petitioner states that she was however working as Upper Primary School Assistant in the third respondent's school since 02.06.2008 pursuant to her W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2009 2 reappointment. She also states that she had to rush to Kuwait to join her husband who was sick and bed ridden and therefore she submitted a leave application for a period of 233 days from 11.08.2008 to 31.03.2009. The petitioner states that the application for leave was accompanied by a medical certificate issued by the Doctor at Kuwait certifying that her husband is undergoing treatment at Kuwait. 3. The petitioner proceeded on leave, without the leave being sanctioned. The Headmaster of the school forwarded the leave application submitted by the petitioner to the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer returned the leave application for the reason that the petitioner's appointment has not been approved. The Manager thereupon issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why her absence should not be treated as unauthorised absence. The petitioner submitted a reply. The Manager thereafter issued Ext.P1 order dated 05.12.2008 appointing the petitioner as Upper Primary School Assistant for the period from 12.11.2008 to 31.03.2009. Since the petitioner was at Kuwait, she did not join duty. The Manager thereupon issued a W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2009 3 memo and thereafter, Ext.P8 order dated 03.01.2009 terminating the petitioner's appointment and declaring that her claim for reappointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules stands forfeited. The petitioner has, aggrieved by Ext.P8, filed Ext.P9 revision petition before the Government. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P9 revision petition and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that an appeal lies from Ext.P2 and therefore, the petitioner ought to have moved the District Educational Officer instead of moving the Government in revision. 4. I have Considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. By Ext.P8, the Manager has terminated the petitioner's appointment made as per Ext.P1 which was issued in recognition of her right under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules and has also ordered that her claim under Rule 51A shall stand forfeited. Challenging Ext.P8, the petitioner has moved the W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2009 4 Government in revision. The learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner should exhaust the appellate remedy available to her before moving the Government in revision. A Division Bench of this Court has in Ravindra Babu Vs. State of Kerala (1987 (1) KLT 472) held that all orders in respect of matters governed by Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules are revisable by the Government, whether the order is one made by the original authority or the appellate authority. On the terms of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, the Manager of an aided school is subordinate to the Educational Officers and the Government. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P8 is not revisable by the Government. 5. Ext.P8 visits the petitioner with adverse civil consequences. Apart from terminating her appointment, the Manager has also ordered that the petitioner's right for reappointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules stands forfeited. Whether on the facts, the Manager was right in passing Ext.P8 order is a matter which W.P.(C) No.3385 of 2009 5 the Government can decide. In these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P9 revision petition and pass orders thereon after affording the petitioner and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. The Government shall after final orders are passed on Ext.P9 communicate the same to the petitioner and the third respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE pac