IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2938 of 2009(Y) PETITIONER: THE MANAGER, AUP SCHOOL PANANGATIRI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLENGODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 2938 OF 2009 Y ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of A.U.P.School, Panangatiri in Palakkad District. It is stated that a regular vacancy arose in the post of LPSA in the School on 2.6.2008. The petitioner appointed Smt.Sukhi Radha as LPSA, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. The proposal for approval of appointment of the aforesaid teacher was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P4 order dated 17.9.2008. One of the reasons for rejection is that the validity of the staff fixation order 2008-2009 depends on the judgment in W.P.(C) No,15379 of 2008. Other technical objections were also raised. Challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 appeal before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. Ext.P5 appeal is pending consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason stated for rejection of the proposal for approval of the appointment that the staff fixation order 2008-2009 depends on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008 is absolutely unsustainable. W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008 was filed by the Managers of several schools including the petitioner challenging the circulars issued by the Government and the circular W.P.(C) NO.2938 OF 2009 :: 2 :: issued by the Director of Public Instruction, directing demolition of the pre KER buildings. The Writ Petition, namely, W.P.(C) NO.15379 of 2008, was admitted and Ext.P2 interim order was granted, which was later extended until further orders, as per Ext.P3 order. The pendency of W.P. (C) No.15379 of 2008 should not be a ground for rejection of the proposal for approval of the appointment. I am of the view that the said reason mentioned in Ext.P4 is improper. Still there are other reasons for rejection in Ext.P4, which are to be considered in Ext.P5 appeal. 3. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order at Ext.P4 of the 3rd respondent to the extent it refuses approval to appointment made by the Manager against regular vacancies; (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment made as per Ext.P1; (iii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal at Ext.P5 and pass orders within a period of 7 days; (iv) Declare that the appointment made against regular vacancy at Ext.P1 is entitled to be approved by the 3rd respondent as the Circulars/orders seeking to demolish the pre KER school buildings are stayed by this Hon'ble Court; (v) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.” W.P.(C) NO.2938 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner confines his relief to relief (iii). Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 appeal would be disposed of by the District Educational Officer without delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above: a) The District Educational Officer shall consider and dispose of Exts.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. b) The District Educational Officer need not afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as the petitioner waives such a right of hearing. c) The District Educational Officer shall dispose of Ext.P5 appeal taking into account the observations made above with respect to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008. W.P.(C) NO.2938 OF 2009 :: 4 :: d) It is made clear, accepting the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, that any decision on Ext.P5 appeal as well as the question of revising the staff fixation order 2008-2009 shall be subject to the decision in W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008. e) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer without delay. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/