IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 25904 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.USHAKUMARI, 40 YEARS, W/O.SURESHKUMAR NELLINILKKUNNATHIL MANAGARAM PO., KONNI, (UPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT G.J.M.U.P.SCHOOL, KALLELY PO, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.MIJI JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRTARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONNI. 5. MANAGER, G.J.M.U.P.SCHOOL KALLELY PO., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE FOR R1 - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25904/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT With effect from 1.6.98, the petitioner was appointed as an UPSA in the school of which the 5th respondent is the Manager. The appointment was approved by order dated 12.8.98 and up to 2004-05, the petitioner worked in that capacity. During 2005-06 there was a division fall and consequently, the post of UPSA was abolished and retrenching the junior most LPSA, the petitioner was retained as LPSA. In 2007-08 also there was a division fall in standard IV and that resulted in the retrenchment of the petitioner with effect from 15.7.2007. 2. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated that the Manager has filed a revision before the DPI on 25.1.2008 and that the same is pending. According to the petitioner WP(c).No.25904/2008 2 and the Manager, the staff fixation has to be worked out applying the ratio 1:40. Petitioner has also referred to Ext.P4, a report submitted by the AEO to the second respondent, where also the introduction of the aforesaid ratio is recommended. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that, if the staff fixation is worked out applying the ratio, there is a scope for one more division and that the retrenchment could have been avoided. 3. Now, as the matter is pending in revision before the DPI, I am of the view that the DPI shall dispose of the revision, taking note of Ext.P4 report, with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. I also notice that pursuant to the direction in Ext.P5 staff fixation order itself the Manager has filed Ext.P6 seeking exemption from the requirement of minimum strength for the year 2008-09. Petitioner submits that WP(c).No.25904/2008 3 similar request has been made in the previous year as well. It is directed that, in the event the decision to be taken in the revision is adverse to the Manager, the request made by the Manager for exemption shall also be taken up for consideration. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.25904/2008 4