IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8703 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SREENATH, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL, MEKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL, MEKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. P.J.SUSANNAMMA, HEADMISTRESS, MARTHOMA HIGH SCHOOL, MEKOZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R2 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.ARUN THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN FOR R2 SRI.JACOB P.ALEX FOR R3 SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX FOR R3 R1 BY G.P. SMT. NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.5.1973 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 12707/2005 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.12.2008 EXT.P5-TRUE CPY OF ORDER IN RP 928/2010 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.2.2011 EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2010 EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT DATED 23.2.2011 EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATD 9.3.2011 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.8703 of 2011-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as a High School Assistant, approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 to the extent to which the management promoted the third respondent as Headmistress in a vacancy which arose on 23.7.2010. 2. Going by Ext.P6 order, the Government had directed that the third respondent will be appointed as teacher in charge with effect from 1.4.2008 at Marthoma High School, Mekkozhoor, Pathanamthitta and she will be appointed as Headmistress in the said school with effect from 23.7.2010. The third respondent has already retired from service on 31.3.2011. Now the petitioner has been appointed as Teacher in charge with effect from 1.4.2011. 2. This Court passed an interim order dated 6.7.2010 whereby it was directed that the petitioner will be put in charge as Headmaster subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to forgo the claim against the third respondent who wpc 8703/2011 2 has already retired from service on 31.3.2011. My attention was also invited to the operative portion of Ext.P3 judgment of the Full Bench which reads as follows: “In the result, we order that the Manager shall appoint the first petitioner as Headmaster in the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2005. On his retirement, the second petitioner and on her retirement, the third petitioner shall be appointed. The D.E.O. shall approve the appointments of the petitioners made by the Manager. Since the appointment of none was approved and monetary benefits were not released, the petitioners are entitled to get arrears of salary also.” The petitioner herein is the third petitioner therein who was to be appointed on the retirement of the second petitioner therein. As on today, the petitioner is working as Teacher in charge and the Manager will have to make a regular appointment by granting promotion as Headmaster. The same will be done within a period of one week. It is pointed out that since the petitioner is only functioning as Teacher in charge, the salary bills of the teachers as well as that of the petitioner are not being entertained now and therefore a direction will have to be issued to the District Educational Officer to provisionally approve the petitioner as Teacher in charge till final orders are passed by the District Educational Officer with regard to the grant of approval of the regular promotion. wpc 8703/2011 3 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner as Headmaster on a regular basis within a period of one week, with effect from 1.4.2011. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to provisionally approve the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher in charge, within ten days from today. 5. Learned Govt. Pleader pointed out that the pendency of the Writ Appeal from the judgment in Meenakshikutty v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 1032) is the reason to keep the matter pending by the District Educational Officer. In the light of Ext.P3 judgment of the Full Bench, already there is a direction to approve the appointment. Therefore, the District Educational Officer will have to abide by the same. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/