IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 9074 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SHIBU.A.MATHEW, S/O.A.Y.MATHAI, AGED 38 YEARS, H.S.A [PHYSICAL SCIENCE], P.H.S.S, PANDALLUR, KADAMBODE P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JULEE.C.V,W/O.REJI JOSEPH,AGED 31 YEARS, H.S.A[PHYSICAL SCIENCE], P.H.S.S, PANDALLUR, KADAMBODE P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. RESIDING AT:CHETTAKKATTIL, PUTHUPPADI P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER, P.G.S.S, PANDALLUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED: R6. SMITHA KARIYATHAMANNIL, W/O.SHAJI P., “PREJINIVAS”, HOUSE, CHEECLIKODE P.O., ATHOLI VIA, KOZHIKODE. (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/06/2008 IN I.A.NO.7213/08) R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI R5 BY ADV.MR.JIJO PAUL ADDL.R6 BY ADVS.MR.P.J.MATHEW, MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9074/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 25/08/2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHER TEACHERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/11/2007. P4: COPY OF LETTER GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD.4/12/2007. P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.36351/2007 DTD. 7/12/2007. P6: COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.2/01/2008. P7: COPY OF ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TD. 28/02/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A): COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006. R5(B): COPY OF APPEAL PETITION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R5(C): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 4/2/2008. R5(D): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT MADE ON REGULAR BASIS AGAINST VACANCIES. R5(E): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/03/2008 SANCTIONING LWA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9074 of 2008-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners herein are working as H.S.A. (Physical Science) in the school managed by the 5th respondent. Additional 6th respondent is working as H..S.A. (English) in the same school. The challenge is against Ext.P7 order passed by the District Educational Officer whereby a clerical error in the staff fixation for the year 2005-06 was corrected. 2. In Ext.P7 it was ordered that two posts of HSA (Core subjects) already sanctioned to PHSS, Pandallur as temporary is made permanent with effect from 15.7.2005. It is recorded in Ext.P7 that in the school, as per order dated 13.7.2005 thirty three posts of HSA (Core subjects) were sanctioned (31 permanent and two temporary). However, during the year 2002-2003 two additional posts were sanctioned which were carried over to the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is recorded that due to clerical error it was noted as 31 permanent and 2 temporary posts. It is accordingly, the correction was carried out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners ought to have been heard before implementing Ext.P7. Reference is made wpc 9074/2008 2 to Ext.P6 order passed by the Director of Public Instructions, wherein it was held that the post in which the additional 6th respondent was appointed, is a temporary one. The said order is dated 2.1.2008, whereas Ext.P7 order is dated 28.2.2008. 4. Obviously, the order does not affect any of the rights of the petitioners. The effect of the order is only to revise the staff fixation for the year 2005-2006. The school is held entitled to have 33 permanent posts instead of 31 as noted in the staff fixation order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a remote possibility of the petitioners being affected by the implementation of Ext.P7 and therefore they should have been heard prior to the issuance of Ext.P7. If at all the petitioners are visited with any adverse civil consequences, by any future possibilities like reduction of posts, it is up to them to challenge the said orders before the statutory authorities at the right point of time. Merely on the plea that there is a remote possibility of the petitioners’ right being affected by the innocuous order like Ext.P7, passed by an authority like District Educational Officer, after correcting an error crept in the petitioners cannot seek for quashing the same. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the manager that the additional 6th respondent was appointed in a promotion vacancy of one wpc 9074/2008 3 Antony and as H.S.A. (Social Science), and the said promotion has already been approved. I am not rendering any finding on those aspects since I am called upon only to examine the validity of Ext.P7 alone here. The right of the petitioners to continue or to avail the benefit of existing orders for their accommodation or the right of the additional 6th respondent for approval, etc. are all matters which should get the attention of the statutory authorities at the right point of time. 7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent that only because of the pendency of the writ petition, the approval of appointment of the additional 6th respondent has not been granted and the salary has not been disbursed so far. It is made clear that the concerned authority can pass appropriate orders regarding the grant of approval of the additional 6th respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioners are affected by it, they will also be heard. Depending upon the outcome, the additional 6th respondent will be entitled for the payment of salary and other benefits. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/