IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 30721 of 1999(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.SARASWATHY, UPSA, KALYAN KRISHNAN MEMORIAL VOCATINAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SERCRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. D.E.O., PALAKKAD. 4. THE MANAGER, KALYAN KRISHNAN MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. 5. T.P.MINI, U.P.S.A., KALYAN KRISHNAN MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SMT.K.K.GEETHA SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) G.P. SHRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.30721/99. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.12.91 BY R3. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.30.6.92 BY R3. P3. COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DTD.31.3.1994. P4. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.1.7.92. P5. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.6.7.93. P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.29.6.96 BEFORE THE MANAGER. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.7.98 BY THE MANAGER. P8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.9.9.98 BEFORE DPI. P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.19333/98. P10. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.1.7.99. P11. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.12.98 BY R2. P12. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.29.6.95. P13. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.16.2.00 BEFORE DPI. P14. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER 10.1.00. P15. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.17.8.00. Sdk+. ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.30721 of 1999 ================== Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Upper Primary School Assistant in the 4th respondent's school. Originally she was appointed in a leave vacancy for the period from 8.7.1991 to 17.9.2001. Proposal for approval of that appointment was returned by the DEO to the manager for re-submission after curing certain defects pointed out by the DEO. The manger resubmitted the same. After a long period the same was again returned for resubmission after stay in a writ petition stated to be pending is vacated. According to the petitioner, there was no stay against her appointment. Nothing was done on the approval of the petitioner's appointment in the meanwhile. While so, on 3.9.1991 there arose a permanent vacancy to which the manager appointed the 5th respondent. Subsequently, in other vacancies others were appointed. When another vacancy arose on 1.7.1992 the petitioner was appointed by the manager as per Ext.P4. However, the appointment was approved by the DEO only for the period from 20.1.1993 to o.p.30721/99 2 30.3.1993, by endorsement in Ext.P4 itself. Apparently the approval was restricted to 30.3.1993 (must be 31.3.1993) for want of 8 months' continuous service. Later on, by Ext.P5 order the petitioner was again appointed with effect from 7.6.1993 onwards, which was duly approved by the DEO by order dated 18.3.1995. After about 3 years, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation before the Director of Public Instruction taking up her grievance against non-approval of appointment for the period from 8.7.1991 to 17.9.1991 as also overlooking her claim for appointment to the vacancies which arose on 3.9.1991 and refusal to pay vacation salary for the period from 1.4.1993 to 6.6.1993. The petitioner filed writ petition No.19333/1998 in which, by Ext.P9 judgment, this court directed the Director of Public Instruction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8, pursuant to which the DPI passed Ext.P11 order. In that order, the DPI considered only the petitioner's claim for approval of the appointment from 8.7.1991 and the DPI directed the DEO to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 8.7.1991, if otherwise eligible. By endorsement dated 26.4.2000 in Ext.P14 appointment order, the DEO approved the appointment for the o.p.30721/99 3 period from 8.7.1991 to 17.9.1991. Thereafter, on 17.8.2000 the petitioner again filed Ext.P15 before the DPI seeking additional reliefs. Originally the petitioner filed writ petition for implementation of Ext.P11. Later, the petitioner amended the writ petition seeking additional reliefs for directing the respondents to pay vacation salary from 31.3.1993 to 6.6.1993 and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner continuously from 3.9.1991 to 6.6.1993 also and to declare that the petitioner is senior to the 5th respondent in the school in the grade of UPSA. 2. I am of opinion the petitioner should be denied those reliefs on the ground of delay and laches. Approval of the petitioner's appointment by Ext.P4 was restricted for the period from 20.1.1993 to 30.3.1993. That order was passed on 28.1.1995. The petitioner did not challenge the same within a reasonable time before any authority. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 only after three years and nine months by Ext.P8 representation dated 9.9.1998. Of course this court directed the DPI to consider Ext.P8 and pursuant thereto Ext.P11 order was passed on 7.12.1998. The petitioner filed writ petition originally for o.p.30721/99 4 implementation of Ext.P11. At that time also, the petitioner did not include any prayers challenging Ext.P4 or the failure of the DPI to consider her prayers in respect in Ext.P8 while passing Ext.P11 order. Even thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P15 only on 17.8.2000, still almost two years after passing of Ext.P11. The petitioner filed the amendment petition also only on 21.8.2000 seeking additional reliefs. As such, at every stage, the petitioner was guilty of delay and laches. I do not think that this court should come to the assistance of such a person who was sleeping over her rights time and again. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the additional prayers at this point of time. Accordingly, while recording the fact that Ext.P11 has been duly implemented by approving the appointment as per the endorsement in Ext.P14, I am not inclined to grant any reliefs prayed for by the petitioner now. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE o.p.30721/99 5 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.30721 of 1999-G =============== J U D G M E N T 17th January, 2008