IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 600 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28660/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARATHI.S, D/O.SHEELAKUMARY, AGED 26, VILAYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, INCHAKKADU, MYLOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.PADMINI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN 691 506. 2. RAVEENDRANATHAN PILLAI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) VAISAKHAM, KADAMPANADU SOUTH PO, KADAMPANADU, PIN 691 552. (THE MANAGER, K.R.K.P.M.B.H.S, KADAMPANADU & H.S., MANNADY, KOLLAM DISTRICT). THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COC 600/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S DOCUMENTS : ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2011. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/5958/2010 DATED 1.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.4.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE DEO, KOTTARAKKARA. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.5.2011 BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' DOCUMENTS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- C.O.C.No.600 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Writ Petition No.28660 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was disposed of as per the judgment dated 30th November, 2010. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows : “Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Educational Officer within a period of one month from today. On receipt of such representation, the District Educational Officer shall consider the grievance put forward by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager, shall issue appropriate directions in the matter. If the District Educational Officer comes to the C.O.(C) No.600/2011 2 conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, the District Educational Officer shall issue specific direction to the Manager to appoint the petitioner. The Manager shall comply with the direction issued by the District Educational Officer without fail.” 2. The petitioner filed this Contempt Case alleging that the District Educational Officer and the Manager have deliberately and willfully violated the judgment and they did not comply with the judgment. 3. The District Educational Officer passed Annexure A2 order dated 1.2.2011, the operative portion of which reads as follows : “In the circumstances the petitioner Smt.Arathi.S.,Vilayilazhikathu Veedu, Inchakkadu, Mylem.P.O. is a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER in the management of K.R.K.P.M. BHS, Kadampanadu and HS, Mannady. She is the right full candidate either in the C.O.(C) No.600/2011 3 post of HSA (Maths), UPSA or Non - teaching category. The Manager K.R.K.P.M. BHS, Kadampanadu and HS Mannady is directed to appoint the petitioner Smt.Arathi as UPSA or HSA or Non-teaching category against the available vacancy based on her qualification subject to the statutory provisions of KER and other administrative instruction on this issue. The judgment 30.11.2010 is complied accordingly.” 4. The District Educational Officer arrived at the finding that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment as a claimant under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. The District Educational Officer also issued direction to the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the available vacancy. Thus, the District Educational Officer has complied with the direction in the judgment. The petitioner is not justified in filing the Contempt Case against the first respondent, the District Educational Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Educational Officer stated several C.O.(C) No.600/2011 4 things in the order which are incorrect and this was made deliberately to help the Manager, in collusion with the Manager. In the Contempt Case, I do not think that an enquiry into that question can be made. So long as the judgment has been complied with and the decision is in favour of the petitioner, I do no think any further enquiry as to how the District Educational Officer arrived at the conclusion can be made by the court dealing with the Contempt Case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent (Manager) submitted that against the order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the District Educational Officer, the Manager filed W.P.(C) No.15008 of 2011 and a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order of stay on 3.6.2011. The Manager is entitled to challenge the order passed by the District Educational Officer. Such right cannot be curtailed by initiating contempt action against the Manager. This Court granted stay of the order passed by the District Educational Officer. Therefore, the Contempt Case C.O.(C) No.600/2011 5 cannot be proceeded with at all against the second respondent/Manager in view of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.15008 of 2011. For the aforesaid reasons, the Contempt Case is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl