IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 261 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23698/2003 Dated 02/12/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- E. GOMATHIAMMA, MANAGER, A.G.R.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 501. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA-690 101. 5. SMT. JAYALEKSHMI V. NAIR, SREEPADAM, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 501. R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU ADVS. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE& SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 472 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant in both the appeals is the Manager of A.G.R.M. Higher Secondary School, Vallikkunnam, Alappuzha. W.A. 261 of 2007 is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.23698 of 2003 and W.A. 472 of 2007 is against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24190 of 2003. She was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23698 of 2003 and the second respondent in W.P.C.No. 24190 of 2003. The first writ petition was filed by her challenging Ext.P6 order of the Deputy Director of Education, Alleppey disqualifying her to hold the office of Manager and also appointing the D.E.O., Mavelikkara to function as Manager. As per that order, it was also ordered that Jayalakshmi V. Nair, a 51A claimant, who was denied appointment by the appellant will be entitled to get from the appellant the salary she lost. The second original petition was W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007 2 filed by the aforementioned 51A claimant seeking a direction to the Manager to appoint her. She has worked in the school from 26.6.1998 to 27.8.1998 and from 28.9.98 to 13.11.98 as lower grade Hindi teacher. When a vacancy arose in the school from 15.11.2000 she was denied appointment by the appellant. The 51A claimant got the initial spells of appointment when another person was holding the office of Manager. The management dispute was finally settled in favour of the appellant and she assumed office on 11.8.2000. In fact, she submits, she was appointed as Manager on 15.1.1998, but she could assume office only on 11.8.2000. Her predecessor in office continued as Manager during the above period and made the above said appointments of Jayalakshmi V. Nair, which made her a 51A claimant. That was the reason why she was not willing to give re-appointment to the above mentioned 51A claimant. 2. It is unnecessary to refer to the detailed facts, in view of the limited submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The writ petition filed by the 51A claimant teacher was allowed by the learned Single Judge by directing to appoint her as lower grade Hindi W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007 3 teacher w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and to approve her appointment. It was also held that she is eligible to get the regular vacancy that arose in the school in the above post during the academic year 2002 - 2003. While directing to appoint her, the controlling officer was directed to approve her appointment also. Writ Petition No. 23698 of 2003 filed by the Manager was also allowed. Ext.P6 mentioned in that writ petition was quashed by this court for the reason that the same was passed without following the due procedure. The Deputy Director was given liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly canvassed before us the point that there was no justification for giving liberty to the Deputy Director to proceed further in the matter. The learned Single Judge interfered with Ext.P6 mainly for the reason that it was issued without following the due procedure. This court is not exercising any appellate power but only exercising the power of judicial review. So, the matter was remitted to the Deputy Director to pass orders in accordance with law. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the said direction. W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007 4 4. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice that pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge the Deputy Director of Education, Alapuzha, after hearing the appellant, has passed order No.B3/12022/05 dt.25.9.2008 against the appellant. 5. In view of the above development, these writ appeals are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge the aforementioned order of the Deputy Director of Education. All her contentions regarding her disqualification are kept open. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm