IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1762 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH KUMAR.C.,H.S.A., PAVANDOOR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PAVANDOOR P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VATAKARA. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 5. MANAGER, PAVANDOOR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1762 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as H.S.A. (Sanskrit) in Pavandoor Higher Secondary School with effect from 9.10.2000. The proposal for appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P1 order dated 12.2.2001 on the ground that the school being a newly opened school, the Manager should have appointed protected teachers as per G.O. (MS) No.123/91/G.Edn. Dated 5.8.1991. It was also held that the vacancy against which the appointment was made, was not established. Ext.P1 order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Director who passed Ext.P3 order dated 24.8.2001 rejecting the appeal. The Manager filed an appeal before the Director of Public Instruction challenging Ext.P3 order. The Director of Public Instruction as per order dated 10.7.2002 dismissed the revision on the ground that the promotion and posting of E.Valsala, H.S.A. as H.S.S.T. was not approved and therefore, there was no established vacancy of H.S.A. to WPC No.1762/2009 2 accommodate the petitioner as H.S.A. (Sanskrit). The reason stated by the authorities below that no protected teacher was appointed, was not stated as a reason by the Director of Public Instruction. 2. It is stated that there was a dispute between Smt.Valsala and Sri.Hrishikesan for the post of H.S.S.T. It is stated that the dispute between them was settled and the Government passed Ext.P5 order dated 11.7.2007 wherein the agreement was recorded and the Manager was directed to appoint Hrishikesan in the next arising vacancy of H.S.S.T. (Malayalam) in Pavandoor Higher Secondary School and settle the matter for ever. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P5 order, appointment of Smt.Valsala as H.S.S.T. was approved by the Director of Public Instruction on 23.10.2007, with effect from 1.9.2000. The petitioner states that thus a clear vacancy of H.S.A. (Sanskrit) was established with effect from 1.9.2000. 3. It is further stated that the Manager filed a petition before the Director of Public Instruction stating that the appointment of Valsala having been approved, the appointment of the petitioner (Sri.C.Sureshkumar) is liable to be approved WPC No.1762/2009 3 with effect from 9.10.2000. The Manager requested the Director of Public Instruction to issue appropriate directions to the District Educational Officer. The Director of Public Instruction returned Ext.P6 stating that he has no authority to review his order and directing the Manager to file a revision. Ext.P7 dated 21.12.2007 is the endorsement made by the Director of Public Instruction on Ext.P6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision/representation dated 7.12.2007 before the Secretary to the Government (General Education Department) requesting to examine the matter and to issue necessary orders to approve the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A.(Sanskrit) with effect from 9.10.2000. In Ext.P8, it is pointed out that the appointment and promotion of Smt.Valsala was approved with effect from 1.9.2000 and therefore, objection raised by the Director of Public Instruction for the approval of appointment of the petitioner is no longer in existence. 4. Though the District Educational Officer and the Deputy Director of Education pointed out in Exts.P1 and P3 that the Manager failed to appoint a protected teacher, in Ext.P4, that objection was not made a ground for rejection of approval of WPC No.1762/2009 4 appointment of the petitioner. The state of affairs is not very clear and even in Ext.P8, there is no mention about the same. Ext.P8 is not disposed of by the Government so far. Subsequent developments as pointed out in Ext.P8 and all other matters which are relevant are be examined by the Government before taking a final decision in the matter. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the originals relating to Exts.P1, P2 and P4 and quash the same. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied that if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 expeditiously. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 would be disposed of within a reasonable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition WPC No.1762/2009 5 is disposed of as follows: (i) The first respondent shall dispose of Ext.P8 dated 7.12.2007 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and any other affected party. (ii) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a true copy of the Writ Petition, before the first respondent. (iii) The petitioner shall send by registered post to the fifth respondent Manager, a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment and shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl