IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11192 of 2009(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THRESSIAMMA E.J., ERUMPUTHATTANICKAL HOUSE, MUKKOOTTUTHARA (P.O), KOLLAMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI AT D.D.OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KATTAPPANA. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, DIOCESE OF KANJIRAPPALLY. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.11192 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. M.V.S.Nampoothiry, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the fifth respondent. 2. The fifth respondent appointed the petitioner as Lower Grade P.T. Hindi Teacher against a regular vacancy that arose on the promotion of an incumbent as Full-time Hindi Teacher with effect from 9.6.2008 as per Ext.P1 order dated 9.6.2008. The District Educational Officer approved the said appointment only for the period from 9.6.2008 to 31.3.2009, the date on which the academic year 2008-2009 came to an end. The petitioner submits relying on the decision of this Court in Mini Joseph v. Director of Public Instruction - 2005(4) KLT Case No.17 that as she was appointed against a regular vacancy and had more than eight months service as on the close of the academic year, she was entitled to continue in service. The petitioner contends that in these circumstances, the Assistant Educational Officer erred in limiting the approval of her WP(C) 11192/09 -: 2 :- appointment to 31.3.2009 on daily wage basis. 3. Rule 8 A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules empowers the Director of Public Instruction to revise orders relating to approval of appointment. Instead of resorting to the alternate remedy available to her, the petitioner has straightaway moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer approving her appointment on daily wage basis during the period from 9.6.2008 to 31.3.2009. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have moved the Director of Public Instruction before moving this Court. The order approving the petitioner's appointment as per Ext.P1 was passed on 20.2.2009. Rule 8A does not prescribe a time limit within which revisional power of the Director of Public Instead has to be invoked. In these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions: (i) The petitioner shall within one month from today file an appropriate revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction setting out her claims and contentions. (ii) The Director of Public Instruction shall on receipt of such a revision petition issue notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent and pass orders thereon after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (iii) Final orders in the matter shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the revision petition from the petitioner. WP(C) 11192/09 -: 3 :- (iv) The Director of Public Instruction shall after orders are passed on the revision petition, communicate copies thereof to the petitioner and the fifth respondent. (v) The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess