IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1617 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2511/2005 Dated 06/05/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA. G., AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. P.G. BHASKARA PILLAI, AKKUTHARAYIL VEEDU, SOORANADU SOUTH, KAKKAKUNNU P.O., PIN-690 522, U.P.S.A., I.I.U.P.SCHOOL, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. RAJALAKSHMI AMMA E., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.SURENDRA BABU. S., MAMPUZHA HOUSE, PUKKAD P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, U.P.S.A, I.I.U.P. SCHOOL, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF FKERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, I.I.U.P.SCHOOL, NADUVILAKKARA, NEAR CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. MOHANAKUMARI, SANSKRIT TEACHER, I.I.U.P. SCHOOL, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1, 2 SRI.M.V.THAMPAN FOR R3 SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1615 OF 2005 THE COURT ON 04/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. Nos. 1617 and 1615 of 2005 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.A.1617/2005. The appellants were the writ petitioners. They are U.P. School Assistants of the 3rd respondent's Upper Primary School. They have continuous qualified service in that school from 20.7.1978 and 15.6.1983 respectively. The 4th respondent herein joined the school as a lower grade Sanskrit teacher on 1.6.1976. Initially the said post was a part time post. Later, it was made full time on her completing five years' service in that post. Ext.R3(d) is the approved seniority list of teachers of that school. As per that, 4th respondent is Rank No.4, 1st appellant is Rank No.6 and 2nd appellant is Rank No.9. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in this school on 1.4.2005 and the 4th respondent was appointed to that post. Aggrieved by that appointment, the writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:- “ a) Declare that the students are WA.1617 & 1615/05 : 2 : not being taught Sanskrit in I.I.U.P. School, Naduvilakkara, Thevalakkara PO, Kollam district. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to initiate appropriate action as a consequence or the above declaration.” 2. In the said writ petition, the Manager produced Ext.R3 (c) order of the Joint Director of Public Instruction dated 27.5.2004 restoring the post of full time Sanskrit teacher in the school for the academic year 2003-04. Pleading that they were unaware of the said order, the appellants filed the connected writ petition(civil) No.8757/05 challenging Ext.R3(c). 3. The appellants wanted to abolish the post of Sanskrit teacher so as to remove the 4th respondent from the post of the Headmaster. Respondents 3 and 4 filed separate counter affidavits resisting the prayers in the writ petition and pointing out that the 4th respondent was continuing in the post of Sanskrit teacher based on the staff - fixation orders issued from time to time. During the year 2003-04, the said post was sanctioned only as part time post. Statutory remedy was invoked which resulted in WA.1617 & 1615/05 : 3 : the issuance of Ext.R3(c). The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 4. Heard. The prayer in the writ petition is plainly untenable. Existence of a post in the school is based on its sanction under the staff fixation order. If any one has any dispute about it, the party has to work out his remedy against it under the statute. If the Manager is aggrieved, he has a right of appeal. If any teacher is aggrieved, he has a right of revision to the DPI. Without any objection from any quarters, post of Sanskrit teacher was sanctioned from time to time and, therefore, the present motion made by the appellants for abolition of that post has only to be rejected. Learned Single Judge has rightly done it. We find no reason to interfere with the said judgment under appeal. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. W.A.No.1615/05. 5. As mentioned earlier, on production of Ext.R3(c) in W.P.(C) No.2511/05, the W.P.(C) No.8757/05 was filed challenging that order, producing it as Ext.P4. The learned Single Judge dismissed this writ petition also along with W.P.(C) WA.1617 & 1615/05 : 4 : No.2511/05. Hence this appeal. 6. Heard. We notice that the appellants do not have any locus standi to challenge the sanctioning of a post of Sanskrit teacher as per the staff fixation order. None of their legal rights or legally protected interest is affected by the said order. They are meddlesome interlopers and, therefore, the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, we uphold the said judgment and accordingly this writ appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge