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. 36977 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.JYOTHI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. RAJAGOPALAN HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SHRI.K.E.HAMSA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR,P.O.KANNUR. 4. SMT. P.P.LEELA MANAGER, PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL (SOCIETY) VIDHYA, PANNENPARA ROAD, PALLIKUNNU 670 004 KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE HEADMASTER PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.36977 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 order, she was appointed as HSA Physical Science in a leave vacancy, in the school of which the 5th respondent is the Headmaster. It is stated that appointment was also approved. According to the petitioner, being a 51A claimant, she was reappointed in a promotion vacancy by Ext.P2 order issued by the then Manager. Ext.P3 is the relevant staff fixation order, which is referred to suggest that there was a post available. 2. Subsequently, the appointment of the new Manager was approved by order dated 31/07/2008 with effect from 23/04/2006, and she took charge only on 18/08/2008 vide Ext.P4. Soon after her assumption of the office, the new Manager requested the DEO not to approve the petitioner's appointment by Ext.P2, and issued Ext.P7 show cause notice to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply. 3. It is stated that immediately thereafter the petitioner was terminated by Ext.P9 order with effect from 13/06/2008 and fresh appointment has been made in the post of HSA (English). Though it WP(C) No.36977/2008 -2- would appear that the petitioner has a grievance, but the fact remains that the petitioner will have to avail of remedies that are provided in the statute. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has already filed objection before the 3rd respondent DEO, objecting to grant of approval to the fresh appointment that is made. 4. Be that as it may, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue her statutory remedies that are available, and also clarify that it will be open to the petitioner to seek interlocutory orders from such statutory authorities. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg