IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 429 of 2010(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.SEENAMOL, W/O.SAJEEV, AGED 39, KURIAPPILLIL (SWARARAG), NETTUR P.O., MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 304. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE MANAGER, S.N.HIGH SCHOOL, CHERAI. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 429 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the refusal on the part of the educational authorities to approve Ext. P1 appointment order issued by the 5th respondent appointing the petitioner as an Upper Primary School Assistant in the maternity vacancy of Smt. T.A. Vimala, who applied for maternity leave from 19-7-2000 to 30-11-2000. By Ext. P2, the 4th respondent refused to approve petitioner's appointment. Appeals filed by the petitioner and the 5th respondent were rejected as per Ext. P3 order dated 17-5-2001. Ext. P5 revision petition filed before the 2nd respondent was also met with the same fate by Ext. P6 order dated 2-7-2009. Ext. P7 revision petition against that order before the 1st respondent was also dismissed by Ext. P8 order dated 23-11-2009. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P8 and quash Ext. P 8, P6 and P3; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant approval to the direction appointment of the petitioner as UPSA in the 5th respondent management's school during the period from 19-7- 2000 to 30-11-2000, for the purpose of claim under Rule 51 A of the Kerala Education Rules, Chapter XIV A for having preference in appointment to future vacancies in the schools under the same educational agency and for payment to her service.” 2. As is clear from the impugned orders, the appointment of the petitioner has been refused on the ground that even the appointment of Smt. T.A. Vimala has not been approved, let alone sanctioning of the maternity leave applied for by her. The petitioner's contention now is that the statement in Ext. P1 that the petitioner is appointed in the maternity leave vacancy of Smt. T.A. Vimala is W.P.C. No. 429/10 -: 2 :- wrong and that there is an established vacancy to which the petitioner could have been accommodated. I am of opinion that it is a matter which the petitioner has to take up with the manager for issuing a fresh appointment order if the manager can do so at this point of time. As far as the impugned orders are concerned, they do not suffer from any infirmity insofar as admittedly there is no maternity leave vacancy for appointing the petitioner and Ext. P 1 order states that the petitioner has been appointed in the maternity leave vacancy of Smt. Vimala. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs regarding issue of fresh appointment order etc., if there actually was another established vacancy, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.