IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11039 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAVEENDRAN.C.H., HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (HSST), (JR) ECONOMICS, BEM GIRLS H.S.S., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. CORPORATE MANAGER, ALL CSI SCHOOLS IN MALABAR AND WAYANAD, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. SMT.CICILY JOHN, PRINCIPAL, BEM GIRLS HSS, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. REMILA GRACE VIJAYAN, PRINCIPAL, MCC HSS, KOZHIKODE. 5. THOMAS.T.KURUVILLA, PRINCIPAL, BEM HSS, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. FOR R5 SRI.LIJU. M.P FOR R5 SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R2 SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R3-4 SRI.T.R.SADEESAN FOR R3-4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 11039/08. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.20309/98. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 25-9-1999. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN O.P.31261/99. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 10-1-2000. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN O.P. 9388/2000. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 21-9-2005. EXT.P7 REPRESENTATION DT. 15-2-2008. EXT.P8 JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4480/07. EXT.P9 REPORT DT. 4-3-2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 4-1-2006. EXT.R3(b) ORDER DT. 12-6-2006. EXT.R3(c) ORDER DT. 13-1-2006. EXT.R3(d) ORDER DT. 12-6-06. EXT.R3(e) ORDER DT. 17-1-07. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 11039 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner started service as a U.P. School Assistant in one of the schools of the educational agency of which the 2nd respondent is the corporate manager. On 6-7-1989, he was promoted as High School Assistant. Later, the school was upgraded as Higher Secondary School. In 1998, 14 vacancies of HSST were sanctioned. The petitioner laid claim for one of those posts in the 25% quota prescribed for teachers of the same educational agency. The petitioner was not given promotion. The petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext. P1 judgment for consideration of his representation in this regard by the Director of Higher Secondary Education. The Director passed Ext. P2 order dated 25-9-1999 rejecting the petitioner's claim. The petitioner again approached this Court and obtained Ext. P3 judgment for disposal of his representation again by the manager. Again, the manager passed Ext. P4 order dated 10-1-2000 again rejecting the petitioner's claim. In the meanwhile, another person by name Ajithpal was appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher. The petitioner challenged that appointment before this Court and by Ext. P5 judgment, although this Court dismissed that writ petition, permitted the petitioner to ventilate his grievance, if any, against the appointment given to Mr. Ajithpal before the Director, if he so desires. Thereafter, by Ext. P6 order dated 21-9-2005 the petitioner was promoted as HSST, Economics (Junior). Subsequently the petitioner filed Ext. P7 representation before the Director of Higher Secondary Education. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be appointed as HSST in 1998 and consequently he is entitled to be promoted as Principal in 2005. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P.C. No. 11039/2008 -: 2 :- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to grant promotion to the post of HSST to the petitioner from 1998 which has been denied to him till now. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner as Principal from 2005 and approve the appointment as Principal from that date. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner the monetary benefits due to him if the promotions had been given to him from 1988 as HSST and Principal in 2005.” 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by all the respondents denying the claim of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner's claim is to the 4th vacancy in the 25% quota reserved for qualified teachers of the same educational agency. In 1998, only three persons were appointed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in respect of the appointment of the said three persons. In the 4th vacancy Mr. Ajithpal was appointed in 2001. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court and suffered Ext. P5 judgment in which since there was no material placed before this Court, this Court refused to examined the legality of appointment of Mr. Ajithpal and dismissed th writ petition, but gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, if he desires. Subsequently, Mr. Ajithpal left the school and in the resultant vacancy, the petitioner has been appointed. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that he should have been appointed in the place of Sri. Ajithpal in 2001. That challenge cannot be considered in this writ petition since the petitioner has not chosen to implead Mr. Ajithpal as a party to this writ petition. In order to allow the claim of W.P.C. No. 11039/2008 -: 3 :- the petitioner, I will have to necessarily interfere with the appointment of Mr. Ajithpal, which cannot be done without hearing him. Therefore, that contention also cannot be considered now. 5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submits that as permitted in Ext. P5 judgment, the petitioner has filed Ext. P7 representation before the Director of Higher Secondary Education and the Director may be directed to dispose of that representation . I am not inclined to consider that prayer also, since Ext. P5 judgment was passed on 3-10-2005 permitting the petitioner to ventilate his grievances before the Director and the petitioner has filed Ext. P7 representation only on 15-2-2008, 2 ½ years thereafter. I do not think that the petitioner should be allowed to re-agitate a stale claim at this point of time. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/