IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35974 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANJANA A.K., W/O.RATHEESH KUMAR K.V. U.P.S.A., S.V.V.H.S.S., PALEMADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, S.V.V.H.S.S., PALEMADU, EDAKKARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE MANAGER, S.V.V.H.S.S., PALEMADU, EDAKKARA VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35974 of 2008-G --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th January, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Upper Primary School Assistant in the Sree Vivekananda Vocational Higher Secondary School, Palemadu in Malappuram District. It is stated in the Writ Petition that for staff fixation, the fourth respondent had authorised an officer for one day verification. The one day verification was held on 9.7.2008. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that though 32 students were present in Class V-D, attendance of only 25 students were marked. According to the petitioner, this was deliberately done at the instance of the Manager to get one post abolished so that the petitioner can be ousted from the service. 2. The petitioner filed W.P(C)No.21207 of 2008 for the issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to order a re-verification of student strength for the purpose of staff fixation for the year 2008-09 and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. When the Writ Petition No.21207/2008 was taken up for hearing the staff fixation was over and it was found that there was no sufficient staff strength to accommodate the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction, challenging the staff fixation order. The Writ W.P(C) No.35974 of 2008-G 2 Petition No.21207 of 2008 was disposed of directing the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of revision filed by the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the Director of Public Instruction disposed of the Revision by Ext.P9 order dated 3.11.2008 rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner. Ext.P9 is under challenge. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are the following: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to order a re-verification of student strength in S.V.V. H.S.S, Palemadu for the purposes of staff fixation for the year 2008-09 forthwith, without any further delay; ii) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P9 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate steps to pay the arrear salary of the petitioner for the period from 17.11.2000 to 2.6.2003, forthwith, without any further delay; iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions commanding the 4th respondent to take immediate action against the respondents 5 and 6 on the basis of Exhibit P5, forthwith, without any further delay; v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble W.P(C) No.35974 of 2008-G 3 Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 5. A second revision lies before the Government against Ext.P9 order. The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage. However, the petitioner would be entitled to file statutory revision before the Government, within a period of one month and challenge Ext.P9 order in that revision. If such a revision is filed, the first respondent shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of filing the Revision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, Manager and any other affected party. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition as well as a certified copy of the judgment along with the revision, which he may file before the Government. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //True copy// PA to Judge ab W.P(C) No.35974 of 2008-G 4