IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21659 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANILKUMAR.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, 34 YEARS ANIL BHAVAN, PRAYAR PO., NOW RESIDING AT NANDANAM KAPPIL EAST PO., KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM 5. MANAGER, S.V.H.S.S., CLAPPANA, 6. DEEPTHI SIVARAJAN, DEEPAM, MARUTHURKULANGARA SOUTH, ALUNKADAVU PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU FOR R5 SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL FOR R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21659 of 2008 C -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that he was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in Shanmukha Vilasom Higher Secondary School, Clappana, on 27.11.2006. The appointment of the petitioner is not approved. The averments in the Writ Petition would indicate that there is a dispute regarding the managership. The management dispute, it is stated, is pending before the Director of Public Instruction. It is submitted by Advocate Shri Rajan Babu, counsel appearing for respondent No.5, that the dispute regarding management has been settled by the civil court. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed by Shri K.Sidharthan who was the approved manager at the relevant time. The District Educational Officer declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order dated 25.5.2007. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education who dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P4 order dated 26.3.2008. The petitioner has filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction challenging Ext.P4 order. It is stated that the revision is pending. WP(C) No.21659/2008 2 3. The contention of the petitioner is that taking advantage of Ext.P4 order, the fifth respondent has appointed the sixth respondent as Upper Primary School Assistant as per Ext.P7 appointment order dated 2.6.2008. Petitioner sent Ext.P8 representation dated 10.7.2008 to the District Educational Officer, requesting him not to approve the appointment of the sixth respondent. Ext.P8 is pending before the District Educational Officer. Petitioner states that steps are being taken to approve the appointment of the sixth respondent with effect from 2.6.2008. 4. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following:- “[i] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the fourth respondent to afford to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing while considering the request of the fifth respondent to approve the appointment of the sixth respondent as per Exhibit P7 order. [ii] issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P8 representation, within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court. [iii] issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” WP(C) No.21659/2008 3 5. The only relief which the petitioner seeks, for the time being, is to direct the District Educational Officer to afford an opportunity to the petitioner at the time of considering the question of approval of the appointment of the sixth respondent and also to consider Ext.P8 representation dated 10.7.2008 at that time. The respondents do not object to such a course being adopted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District Educational Officer,Kollam, to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner at the time when the District Educational Officer considers the question of approval of appointment of the six respondent. At that time, the District Educational Officer shall also consider Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks