IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23547 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A.M.YUSUFF, S/O.MUHAMMED MASTER, AGED 40 YEARS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, ALANALLUR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KUTTISSAN MATTUMMATHODI S/O. MUHAMMED @ KUNHAN, AGED 48 YEARS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, ALANALLUR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. BY G.P.SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23547 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 20th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are presently working as High School Assistants in Government High School, Alanallur. The first petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant pursuant to the advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission dated 30.7.2002. His probation in the said category was declared with effect from 19.9.2004. In the case of the second petitioner, he was appointed as High School Assistant pursuant to the advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission dated 18.7.2005. His probation was declared with effect from 8.8.1997. According to the petitioner, they are fully qualified for appointment by transfer to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher in English. The second respondent invited applications for the post of HSST/HSST (Junior) from qualified HSAs/PD Teachers by appointment by transfer as per Ext.P1 and in response to the same the petitioners submitted Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications, respectively. However, their names did not figure in Ext.P3 provisional seniority list of qualified Departmental Teachers for appointment to the above posts published by the 2nd respondent. Consequently, they have submitted Exts.P4 and P4(a) objections against Ext.P3 list. According to the petitioners, Ext.P6 has, WP(C).No.23547/2010 2 now, been issued in purported compliance with Ext.P5 judgment. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash Ext.P6 and with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to include their names at the appropriate position while finalising the seniority list of qualified departmental teachers for promotion to the post of HSST/HSST (Junior). It is thus obvious that the grievance of the petitioner is pertaining to Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent. In Ext.P6 it has been stated thus: “The matter relating to the recognition of IGNOU B.Ed. for appointment to the post of HSST/HSST (Jr.) has been brought to the notice of the Government for clarification and the decision from Government is pending. The petitioner's application will be considered subject to the decision of Government.” The contention of the petitioners is that in the light of Exts.P7 to P9 there is no reason for the second respondent to defer the decision and seek for a clarification from the Government. According to the petitioners, this aspect has already been clarified by the Government as is obvious from Exts.P8 and P9. That apart, according to them, the Kerala Public Service Commission has also approved the qualification possessed by the petitioners as a qualification for appointment to the post of HSST/HSST(Jr.) as is obvious from Ext.P7. In the said WP(C).No.23547/2010 3 circumstances, it is submitted that the second respondent is bound to take a decision after considering Exts.P7 to P9 and though the aforesaid documents were produced before the second respondent, the second respondent did not advert to the said documents. It is evident from Ext.P6 that no decision was actually been taken by the second respondent in the matter whilst it was only deferred. Therefore, there is no need to quash the said order. However, in view of the position obtained in the light of Exts.P7 to P9, I am of the considered view that the second respondent is bound to take a decision on Exts.P4 and P4(a) objections raised by the petitioners against Ext.P3 provisional seniority list of qualified Departmental Teachers for appointment by transfer to the post of HSST/HSST (Junior) after adverting to Exts.P7 to P9 and any other relevant orders on that subject. Such decision shall be taken by the second respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS