IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2234 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.887/2004 Dated 22/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------- ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.KHADER KUNJU, PAMPINEZHATHU HOUSE, PERINJANAM EAST, P.O.CHAKKARAPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.P.K.YUSUFF ISSUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALAPPAD, CHANDRAPPINNI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) KODUNGALLUR - 680 664. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINJANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINJANAM P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 4. P.M.RAZIA, HEAD MISTRESS, W/O.KHALID, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PERINJANAM EAST, PANIKKAVEETTIL, PAYAKKAL, P.O.KANDAMKULAM, METHALA - 680 681. 5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO 3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.V. VIJAYA RAJAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2234 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is the Manager of an Aided School. The Headmistress of the school was suspended by him by Ext.P2 proceedings dt.10.6.2002 for a period of 15 days. Though the appellant moved for extension of the suspension period beyond 15 days before the Asst. Educational Officer, the same was not granted. Even thereafter, she was not allegedly allowed to join duty. Therefore, she moved this Court by filing O.P.No.21086 of 2002. 2. After serving notice by special messenger on the petitioner herein, who was the third respondent in that writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dt.7.8.2002 declaring that the petitioner therein is deemed to be in service. The Asst. Educational Officer was directed to draw and disburse the salary of the teacher as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA of W.A.No. 2234 of 2008 2 K.E.R. The Government was given liberty to recover the salary from the Manager. Finally, the appellant submits, the teacher re-joined the school on 22.8.2003. 3. According to the appellant, since the suspension was only for a period of two weeks, the teacher should have joined duty immediately thereafter. But the official respondents and the teacher maintained that there should be a further order from the Manager ordering her reinstatement. The Asst. Educational Officer drew the salary payable to the teacher as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R.. Thereafter, steps were taken to recover the same from the Manager. The proceedings of the Asst. Educational Officer in this regard are Exts.P5 and P8 Later, on the motion of the Asst. Educational Officer, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), has issued to the appellant Exts.P10 and P11 notices respectively under Section 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Writ Petition was filed challenging those two notices. 4. According to the Manager, the teacher on her own absented from duty and therefore he was not liable to pay any salary for her W.A.No. 2234 of 2008 3 omission. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. According to the learned Single Judge, if the teacher remained absent unauthorisedly, the Manager could have taken action. The claim of the Manager that she refused to join duty on her own was not accepted by the learned Judge. In the result, the challenge against Exts.P10 and P11 was repelled and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this Writ Appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the very same contentions he unsuccessfully canvassed before the learned Single Judge. We notice that the Asst. Educational Officer has directed the Manager to cancel the suspension order and reinstate the teacher. She also approached this Court by filing O.P.21086 of 2002 claiming reinstatement and also for payment of salary. In that writ petition, the appellant herein did not appear or contest. Therefore, the reliefs sought in that writ petition were granted by an interim order. Later, the writ petition was disposed of making the interim order absolute. In the face of the judgment in that case, the present contentions of the appellant cannot be entertained or considered. That W.A.No. 2234 of 2008 4 judgment will bar such contentions. The Asst. Educational Officer has acted only as permitted by this Court. In this case we further notice that the appellant has not chosen to challenge the proceedings of the Asst. Educational Officer. He only challenged the consequential action of the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery). For that reason also, the writ petition was not maintainable. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm