IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8517 of 2007(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHERLY JOSE, HSA (HINDI), HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGODE, P.O.PERINGODU. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, 4. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGODU, P.O.PERINGODU. ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 SRI. T.T. MOHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the appointment order dated 4.10.1999 issued by the 4th respondent. Ext.P2. True copy of the approval order dated 5.6.2000 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3(a); True copy of the Time Table during the year 1999-2000 Ext.P3(b) True copy of the Time Table during the year 2000-2001 Ext.P3(c) True copy of the Time Table during the year 2001-2002 Ext.P3(d) True copy of the Time Table during the year 2002-2003 Ext.P3(e) True copy of the Time Table during the year 2003-2004 Ext.P3(f) True copy of the Time Table during the year 2004-2005 Ext.P3(g) True copy of the time Table during the year 2005-2006 Ext.P3(h) True copy of the Time Table during the year 2006-2007 Ext.P4. True copy of the Staff Fixation Order dated 30.1.2004 for the year 2004-2005 Ext.P5. True copy of the order dated 15.7.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P6. True copy of the representation dated 18.2.2005 by the petitioner 18.2.2005 by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7. True copy of the order dated 8.9l.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P8. True copy of the order dated 28.4.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P9. True copy of the order dated 3.12.2006 issued by the Ist respondent. Ext.P10. True copy of the certificate dated 15.12.2006 issued by H.M of the School. Ext.P11. True copy of the staff fixation order for the years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007. Ext.P12. True copy of the circular NO.1/J2/2005/G. Edn. dated 27.1.2005. Ext.P13. True copy of the GO(P) No.244/206/G. Edn. dated 16.9.2006. Ext.P14. True copy of the certificate dated 24.1.2007 issued by the H.M. of the School. // true copy // P.A to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.8517/2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as HSA(Hindi) in the 4th respondent School with effect from 4.10.1999. That was approved till the end of the academic year as per Ext.P1. Again with effect from 5.6.2000, she was appointed as HSA (Hindi) and the appointment was also approved by Ext.P2. 2. At that time there were four posts of HSA (Hindi) and two posts of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher consequent on Ext.P4 staff fixation order issued for the year 2004-05. Due to shortage of students, one post of HSA(Hindi) was abolished and the petitioner being junior most teacher was thereafter accommodated against the post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher, which was sanctioned for the academic year 2004-05. Ext.P5 is the proceedings appointing her. 3. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P12 restoring teacher student ratio of 1:40. The petitioner represented for WP(c).No.8517/2007 2 the benefit of Ext.P12. That was rejected by the DEO as per Ext.P7 on the ground that the ratio was introduced only to save teachers from retrenchment and that the petitioner was not retrenched. Appeal filed before the DPI was rejected by Ext.P8 on the very same reason. Still aggrieved petitioner filed revision before the first respondent and that was rejected by Ext.P9. Ext.P9 order does not give any reason for rejecting the revision, other than stating that the request in the representation of the petitioner was not admissible as per the existing rules. Counsel for the petitioner also complains that, though an opportunity of hearing was sought for, the revision was rejected without even affording the same. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that the petitioner was in fact retrenched and it was therefore that she was accommodated as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P12 and the conclusion to the contrary in WP(c).No.8517/2007 3 Exts.P7 and P8 are erroneous. 5. This essentially is a matter for the statutory authority to consider. However, as noticed in Ext.P9 none of the contentions raised by the petitioner have been considered and the order has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity o hearing in the matter. 6. Therefore, Ext.P9 rejecting the petitioner's revision is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and for that reason I am inclined to set aside Ext.P9. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and it is directed that the first respondent shall dispose of the revision field by the petitioner against Ext.P8 with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WP(c).No.8517/2007 4