IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 15675 of 2011(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JAMES VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 58 YEARS, NEDUMCHALIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 669, THE MANAGER, ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL POTHANIKKADU. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI. B.G. BHASKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM-31. 3. SMT.DEEPA PAUL, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED 42 YEARS, THEKKENATHIL HOUSE, KOOVAPADY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR – 683544. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. VIJULAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.15675/2011 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF ORDER OF District Educational Officer, KOTHAMANGALAM DTD. 7.6.10 HANDING OVER CHARGE TO PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : COPY OF REQUEST OF PETITIONER TO R2 DTD. 28.6.10. EXT. P3 : COPY OF REPORT OF District Educational Officer, KOTHAMANGALAM DTD. 2.8.10. EXT. P4 : COPY OF REQUEST OF PETITIONER TO Director of Public Instruction DTD. 22.9.10. EXT. P5 : COPY OF REPORT OF District Educational Officer KOTHAMANGALAM DTD. 30.10.10 TO Director of Public Instruction, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT. P6 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 7.1.11 OF Director of Public Instruction THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT. P7 : COPY OF LETTER GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO HEADMISTRESS ON 1.6.11. EXT. P8 : COPY OF ORDER OF R2 DTD. 2.6.11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15675 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the Manager of an aided school aggrieved by the deployment of the 3rd respondent to the school. The challenge is against Ext.P8 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. It is a case where against the election of the petitioner as Manager, a writ petition namely, O.P.No.3567/2001 was pending before this Court. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed Writ Appeal Nos.86 and 87 of 2002 from the judgment therein. In the interim order in the said writ appeals, there was a direction that the 4th respondent can make appointment only with the permission of the Court. It is stated that the Writ Appeal was decided in favour of the petitioner. There was a direction to conduct fresh election and the petitioner was re-elected as Manager by the Parish Assembly in June 2010. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner's appointment as Manager was approved. W.P.(C) No.15675/2011 2 2. According to the petitioner, the deployment of the 3rd respondent to the school is in violation of the interim order passed by this Court. On 14.06.2011, this Court passed an interim order in this writ petition. The petitioner had filed a memo dated 21.06.2011 showing the vacancies available in various schools. The 2nd respondent has also filed a statement and therein after stating various facts it is stated in paragraph 6 as follows: “As such there is an open vacancy of LPSA available in Bethlehem G.H.S., Njaralloor and is being a newly upgraded School, the existing vacancy shall have to be filled up by posting an undeployed protected teacher. The Manager of the School has submitted necessary requisition in this regard. Further the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram as per No.EC2- 35299/11 DPI dated 03.08.2011 had directed the 2nd respondent to recall the teachers when vacancy arose in the parent School or in newly opened/upgraded School. So the 3rd respondent who was deployed to St.Mary's High School, Pothanikkad can be shifted to Bethlehem G.H.S., Njaralloor or any other vacancies available in this Revenue District”. 3. It is upto the Educational Officers concerned to deploy the 3rd respondent in any school either Government or aided. W.P.(C) No.15675/2011 3 Evidently, the direction in Ext.P8 cannot be supported. Therefore, Ext.P8 is quashed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent is now attached to the office of the District Educational Officer. Appropriate orders will be passed deploying the 3rd respondent as pointed out in the statement filed by the Deputy Director of Education within a period of two weeks. Till then, the present arrangement will continue. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp