IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16182 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.B.SINDU, ASSISTANT TEACHER, ASSISSI SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S PROVINCIALATE, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16182 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 12th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that she is a B.Sc. (Botany) graduate along with B.Ed. (NS). The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Assissi School for the Deaf managed by the 4th respondent. The third respondent, District Educational Officer, Muvattupuzha granted approval to the appointment as per the order dated 25.04.2005. The endorsement on Ext.P1 shows that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was approved for the period from 12.01.2005 till the vacancy exists on the strength of the declaration of the Manager. It is stated that while continuing in the post, she applied for leave without allowance for the period from 18.12.2006 to 30.09.2007 and it was granted as per Ext.P2 order. 2. On 29.02.2008, the Director of Public Instructions issued a report on the audit of accounts and registers of the office of the District Educational Officer, Muvattupuzha for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. The Director of Public Instructions took the view that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed qualification, viz., the Certificate of Diploma in the coaching of defectives either blind or deaf and therefore, the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner is objectionable. 3. Against the staff fixation, the Manager filed an appeal before the Director of Public Instructions . The petitioner had also approached the first respondent with Ext. P5 review petition against the rejection order issued by the second respondent, which was communicated to the Manager. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 26.03.2008 before the second respondent, the Director of Public Instructions, in reply to Ext.P4 audit report. Exts. P5 and P6 are pending disposal. W.P.(C) No. 16182 OF 2008 2 4. While so, the third respondent, the District Educational Officer, Muvattupuzha acting on the basis of the audit report, issued Ext. P7 letter to the Manager stating that since the Director of Public Instructions has objected the approval of appointment of the petitioner and two other teachers, salary to them from April, 2008 can be paid only after the objections are dropped. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) Quash Exhibit P7 issued by the 3rd respondent by the issuance of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) Issue writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to withhold the salary of the petitioner and also not to recover any amount from the petitioner till the disposal of Exhibit P5 and P6. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to keep in abeyance Exhibit P4 audit objections with regard to the appointment of the petitioner till the disposal of Exhibit P5 and P6. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 review petition and Exhibit P6 respectively submitted by the petitioner within a time frame. v) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit to grant and vi) Grant the cost of the Writ Petition.”. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would press only the relief No.(iv) reserving his right to put forward other contentions at the appropriate stage. The learned Government Pleader submitted that W.P.(C) No. 16182 OF 2008 3 the first respondent will dispose of Ext. P5 and the second respondent will dispose of Ext. P6 without delay, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the third respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1) The first respondent shall dispose of Ext. P5 review petition within a period of two months from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager. 2) The second respondent shall dispose of Ext. P6 within a period of two weeks, after the disposal of Ext. P5 by the first respondent. 3) It is made clear that I have not considered the contentions of the respective parties on the merits. The petitioner would be free to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievances, as contained in the reliefs which are not pressed for the time being in this Writ Petition. The petitioner shall send a copy of this judgment to the third respondent by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the 1st respondent. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk