IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35287 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA E.A., L.P.S.A., AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHUVANNAMANNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,PIN-695001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR, PIN-680001 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST, PIN-680001 5. THE MANAGER, AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHUVANNAMANNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680001. 6. C.P.MINIKUMARI, L.P.S.A., AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHUVANNAMANNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680001 BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as L.P.S.A. in the Aided Lower Primary School, Chuvannamannu, Thrissur District. As per Ext.P7 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, the petitioner was held to be not entitled to protection and she was retrenched from service with effect from 15.7.2010. As per the staff fixation order, the 6th respondent C.P.Minikumary, P.K.Suja and Jeicy Varghese were held eligible for protection as per G.O(P) No.175/99/G.Edn. dtd.26.7.1999. Thereafter, the Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P8 order dated 4.11.2010, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “In the above circumstances taking into account the 1:40 teacher student ratio in terms of G.O(P)191/10/G.Edn. dated 22.9.2010 Smt.C.P.Minikumary the senior most protected LPSA who is rendered surplus during the year 2010-11 allowed to retain in the school for 2010-2011 as per Endorsement letter No.B1- W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 2 17215/10 dtd.18.10.2010 of Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur. The staff fixation order read (1) above stands modified to this extend.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P8 order was issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, on the basis of G.O(P) 191/10/G.Edn. Dated 22.9.2010. 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same to the extent it directs retrenchment of the petitioner and further it allows the 6th respondent to continue in the A.L.P.S., Chuvannamannu; (ii) To declare that the petitioner who is entitled for protection under Exts.P10 and P11 orders is eligible to continue in A.L.P.S., Chuvannamannu and the 6th respondent is claiming the benefit of protection under Exts.P12 to P16 orders is liable to be deployed to a government school; (iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to allow the petitioner to continue as L.P.S.A in A.L.P.S, Chuvannamannu in preference to the 6th respondent. (iv) To issue an injunction restraining the W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 3 respondents 4 & 5 from retrenching the petitioner from A.L.P.S., Chuvannamannu on the basis of Ext.P8 order: And (v) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. As against Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Director of Public Instruction under Rule 12E(3) of Chapter XXIII KER. Against Ext.P7 staff fixation order, the petitioner has a right to file a revision before the Director of Public Instruction. Therefore, the petitioner having effective alternative remedy, I am of the view the Writ Petition need not be entertained. The other reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition would become unnecessary if the revision filed by the petitioner is decided in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P8 order, on the basis of GO(Rt) No.4011/2010/G.Edn. dated 15.9.2010 (Ext.P9) and therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. It is submitted that if the alternative remedy is availed, still, Ext.P9 W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 4 Government Order would be put against the Petitioner. Ext.P9 is not a general order but an order in the case of a particular teacher. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9, nothing prevents her from taking up the issue before the Government in the Revision which she may file against Ext.P7 staff fixation order. The petitioner can also insist the Revisional power of the Government in accordance with in the matter of Ext.P8 order. For that purpose, it is not necessary to entertain this Writ Petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. If the petitioner files a revision, needless to say that, it will be considered expeditiously by the appropriate authority. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms