IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25888 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.HANZA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. RAVEENDRAN, HEADMISTRESS, S.B.H.S.KURUMPILAVU THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA- REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, SWAMI BHODHANANDA HIGH SCHOOL, KURUPILAVU, THRISSUR DIST. 5. K.M.ANITHA, H.S.A., S.B.H.S. KURUMPILAVU, THRISSUR DIST. BY SR GP MUHAMOOD T.T. SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25888/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT The dispute regarding inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 5th respondent relatable to the date of commencement of continuous service as UPSA, in the context of the rival claims to be appointed as Headmistress has now been decided by the DEO as evidenced by Ext.P13 order, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court under Ext.P11 judgment. The operative portion of Ext.P11 judgment is as follows:- “Any order thus passed if adverse to the petitioner or to the fifth respondent, will be communicated by the District Educational Officer, properly to them, as it is pointed out that the orders approving the appointment of the fifth respondent and rejecting the approval of appointment of the petitioner were not communicated to her. Therefore, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it will be implemented only after one week of service of the copy of the order.” W.P.(C).25888/09 2 2. By Ext.P13, DEO has held that the seniority list earlier published wherein the petitioner was shown as senior reckoning her service rendered while on protection from 26.11.1988 to 6.1.1992, cannot be taken into account. 5th respondent has continuous service with effect from 9.7.1991 and accordingly, she has been directed to be treated as senior to the petitioner. 3. Challenging Ext.P13, petitioner has preferred an appeal as Ext.P14 before the Deputy Director of Education. This writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate direction in relation to Ext.P14, as also the application for stay, Ext.P14(a). 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, Mr.M.V.Bose and learned Government Pleader Mr.Muhamood. W.P.(C).25888/09 3 5. The Deputy Director of Education shall pass orders on Ext.P14 appeal, after hearing the petitioner as also the 5th respondent, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of Ext.P14. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs