IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 35698 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LISA R, UPSA CENTRAL U.P.S, NATTIKA BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE AEO , VALAPPAD, PO. CHENTHRAPINNI 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE AYYANTHOLE 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS VIDHYABHYASABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER CENTRAL UPS, NATTIKA, THRISSUR. R1TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.T.B.REMANI R4 BY ADV.SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35698/2007/Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: THE PROCEEDINGS OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5-6- 2006. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 2-1-2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 19-9- 2007. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 26-6-2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.35698 of 2007 ======================= Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as a UPSA by the 4th respondent in his school on 5.6.2006 which was approved by the 1st respondent on 2.1.2007. He was also being paid salary pursuant to that. However, by Ext.P3, an objection has been raised to the petitioner's continuance on the ground that petitioner has been appointed in a post created by shifting a UPSA as a LPSA which is not permissible under law. The petitioner would contend that in view of Ext.P4, such shifting is permissible, provided the teacher holds TTC. According to the petitioner, the teacher appointed as LPSA possesses the qualification for appointment as LPSA and therefore the shifting of that teacher as LPSA and consequent appointment of the petitioner as UPSA cannot be objected to. 2. The learned Government Pleader with the help of the counter affidavit opposes the same. W.P.(C) No.35698/2007 -2- 3. Of course, the petitioner has got a case that a reading of counter affidavit shows that the 1st respondent in fact accepts the contentions of the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that in Ext.P3, there is a direction to the AEO to get the matter clarified from the Director of Public Instruction. I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall forward the papers regarding the petitioner's case to the Director of Public Instruction, the 3rd respondent herein, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, DPI shall take a final decision on the question of validity of the appointment of the petitioner and her eligibility for salary within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of the papers from the 1st respondent. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp