IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 31820 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARY P.M., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. SRI. NAISAL GEORGE, H.S.A. (SOCIAL STUDIES), ST. ALBERT'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT BOMBAY NIVAS, MARIAKUTTY JOHN ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF VERAPOLY, ST.ALBERT'S H.S.S.CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. A.D. ANTONY, H.S.A. (SOCIAL STUDIES), HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF JESUS, KOTHAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.31820/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF APPOIJNTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 27-7-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN. EXT. P3: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN W.P.(C) NO.23435/2007. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN W.P.(C) NO.23435/2007. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.23435/2007. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P8: COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN I.L.R. 1982(1) KER 795. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R3(A): COPY OF THE POSTING ORDER DATED 24.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 31820 of 2007(K) ======================= Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order by which the DEO directed return of the proposal submitted by the manger for approval of appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Social Studies) in the 1st respondent's school. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit submitted by the 1st respondent it is stated thus: "It is respectfully submitted that the District Educational Officer an order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. It is respectfully submitted that due to misconstrued reading of the wordings referred in KER book, this respondent has happened to issued a proceedings whereby ordered to return the proposal of the appointment order. This respondent never intend or given consent to terminate the service of the petitioner. Along with the proposal of appointment order of the petitioner, Manager has filed a declaration also. It is now understood that the Manager has already appointed a UPSA as HSA in another School and said appointment has not been approved. Appeal filed by the Manager against the declining order of approval had already been rejected. The Manager can work out his remedy in respect of that appointment order by filing statutory revision before the higher authorities. Therefore in the W.P.(C) No. 31820/ 2007(K) -2- above facts and circumstances this respondent after getting consultation with the higher authorities has decided to withdraw the impugned order so as to pass an appropriate orders in respect of the proposal of the appointment order of the Writ Petitioner." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above submission may be recorded and the writ petition may be closed. This is seriously objected to by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. According to them, the DEO has no such powers to cancel the orders already passed. They also submit that the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent is perfectly in accordance with the KER. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. It is for the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as he deems fit. If the petitioner or respondents 2 and 3 are aggrieved by any such order, it is up to them to take up the matter further in accordance with law. Accordingly, recording paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, this writ petition is closed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to raise their claim to challenge orders, if any, passed by the 1st respondent in the W.P.(C) No. 31820/ 2007(K) -3- matter. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on merits including the power of the DEO to pass orders as proposed by him. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp