IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5802 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ST.PIUS X MANJUMMEL PROVINCE CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY CORPORATE MANAGER,FATHER SUNIL PAZHAMPILLY OCD. BY MR.MOHAN C.MENON, ADVOCATE MR.T.M.KOCHUNNI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. K.S.PETER WILLIAMS,KALATHI VEETTIL HOUSE, KATTIMAPARAMBA,KANNAMALI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. M.F.MARY BETSY, L.P.S.A,ST.ANTONY U.P. SCHOOL, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR), ADV. FOR R4 MR.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 MR.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 MR.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM), ADVOCATE FOR R5 SMT.ASHA CHACKO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 MR.SANDESH RAJA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.5802/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.5020/04/KDS DT.26.11.2004 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER (A.E.O.), MATTANCHERRY. EXT.P2: COPY OF REQUEST SENT BY PETITIONER DATED 15.7.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.SOSAMMA CYRIAC DATED 16.7.2005 OF KUSUMAGIRI MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 8.8.05 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.10.2006 OF THE D.E.O., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF REVISION PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 15.12.2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF SUMMARY OF EVENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO D.M.O. ON 4.5.07. EXT.P8A: COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.5.2007 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.5.2007 SENT BY PETITIONR BY REGISTERED POST TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF REGISTERED LETTER DATED 19.6.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10A: COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.6.07 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.7.2007 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.1.2008 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.9.2008 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF LETTER(“FINAL ORDER IN REVISION”) SIGNED BY ONE JAPABALAN OLIVER, UNDER SECRETARY DATED 19.1.2009 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN,J ========================= W.P.(C).No.5802 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Corporate Educational Agency owning several educational institutions. By virtue of previous approved appointment, the 4th respondent acquired a claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. He raised a complaint that he has not been given preferential appointment in a vacancy which has arisen in the school. A litigation arose, which resulted in Ext.P14 of the Government whereby the 4th respondent was directed to be accommodated in a vacancy in St.Antony's U.P.S., Palluruthy under the management of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that because of the acute mental disorder of the 4th respondent, it would be not in the interests of the school and the students to appoint him, even if he has a claim under Rule 51A. The 4th respondent would dispute the contention on the ground that a Medical Board has cleared the petitioner and therefore the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, now, it is submitted by the parties that the 4th respondent has been accommodated in a W.P.(C).No.5802/2009 2 subsequent vacancy in another school under the petitioner- management, which appointment has also been approved by the educational authority. The 4th respondent is satisfied with the same. The 5th respondent submits that she was appointed in the vacancy to which the 4th respondent laid claim and because of the dispute raised by the 4th respondent, her appointment has not been approved. She submits that now that the 4th respondent's appointment in another school has been duly approved, there cannot be any objection in approving the appointment of the 5th respondent. But the learned counsel for the 4th respondent pointed out that such approval can only be subject to the claim regarding the seniority of the 4th respondent, since the 4th respondent is entitled to preferential appointment ahead of the 5th respondent and therefore, the 5th respondent's appointment can be approved only subject to the seniority of the 4th respondent. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of recording the fact that the 4th respondent has been accommodated in another vacancy in another school which has been approved and directing the 3rd respondent to consider the W.P.(C).No.5802/2009 3 question of approval of the the 5th respondent's appointment taking into account the claim of the 4th respondent for seniority over the 5th respondent in the matter of appointment. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE dvs