IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 23736 of 2005(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.J. ALICE, RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, ST.JOSEPH'S L.P. SCHOOL, ALOOR, MATTOM, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR, RESIDING AT KAKKASSERY HOUSE, MATTAM P.O., ALOOR ROAD, VIA. CHUNDAL GURUVAYUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 23736 of 2005(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.837/2001/GE DATED 01/03/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY (PRU), FINANCE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.16110/B2/04/GE DATED 27/04/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 23736 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired as a headmistress of an aided school on 31.3.2004. While in service, she had break in service for the period from 4.6.1973 to 22.7.1973. Before the break in service could be condoned, the petitioner was required to submit option for higher grade. The petitioner submitted option without taking into account the period of break in service. Subsequently, as per Ext.P1 order dated 1.3.2001, the petitioner sought permission for re-option, by Ext.P2. After retirement of the petitioner, by Ext.P3 dated 27.4.2005, the request of the petitioner for re-option was rejected on the ground that that was beyond the period prescribed by the Government order issued for that purpose. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that she could not have exercised her right to option ignoring the break in service unless and until the break in service was condoned, which was done only on 1.3.2001. The petitioner submitted a request seeking permission for re-option on 20.10.2003. By that time, the period prescribed for re- option had already expired. The petitioner submits that for condoning the break in service, the petitioner's service book was with the Government from 1995 and for the fault of the Government, the w.p.c.23736/05 2 petitioner should not be penalised. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to give permission to the petitioner to submit reoption as requested in Ext.P2. 3. With the help of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader supports the impugned orders. According to him, as is clear from Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted her application for codonation of break in service only on 18.2.1999, 26 years after the break in service occurred. He further points out that the break in service was condoned on 1.3.2001 and the petitioner requested for permission for re-option only on 20.10.2003. In such circumstances, the petitioner is guilty of laches and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In view of the circumstances explained above, I am inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader. The break in service was for the period from 4.6.1973 to 22.7.1973. The petitioner applied for condonation of the break in service only on 18.2.1999. Even after Ext.P1 issued on 1.3.2001 condoning the break in service, the petitioner still waited for more than two-and-a-half years to seek w.p.c.23736/05 3 permission for re-option. At every stage, the petitioner was guilty of delay and laches. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge