IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3796 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOMAN SAM T, FULL TIME MENIAL, T.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PERIMPILAVU, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. 4. THE MANAGER, T.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PERIMPILAVU, THRISSUR DIST. 5. REJILAL K.R., DRAWING TEACHER (ON DAILY WAGE BASIS) T.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PERIMPILAVU, THRISSUR DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3796 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial in T.M.V.H.S. School, Perimpilavu as per Ext.P2 appointment order dated 4.7.2005. The said appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer. It is stated that while continuing his service as Full Time Menial, the petitioner passed the Kerala Government Certificate Examination in Fine Arts on 29.7.2008 as evidenced by Ext.P3 certificate. The petitioner contends that with effect from that date, he is fully qualified to be appointed as Drawing Teacher in accordance with the qualification prescribed under Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules. A regular vacancy of Drawing Teacher arose in the school on 1.4.2008 due to the retirement of a Drawing Teacher. The Manager appointed the 5th respondent as Drawing Teacher on 14.7.2008 in that vacancy. Since the appointment was made only after the commencement of the academic year, the appointment of the fifth respondent was approved only on daily wage basis. After WPC No.3796/2009 2 the appointment of the fifth respondent, it is stated that the petitioner got qualified on 29.7.2008. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Rule 43 claimant for being appointed as Drawing Teacher in preference to the 5th respondent. Pointing out these facts, the petitioner filed a representation dated 22.10.2008 before the Director of Public Instruction. As per the order in W.P.(C) No.32110/08, the Director of Public Instruction was directed to consider and dispose of the said representation. As per Ext.P7 order dated 8.1.2009, the Director of Public Instruction rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner and upheld the approval of the appointment of the fifth respondent. Challenging Ext.P7 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 Revision before the Government. Ext.P8 Revision is pending disposal. 2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P6 and P7 and quashing the same. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders WPC No.3796/2009 3 on Ext.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioner forthwith after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the fourth respondent to promote the petitioner as Drawing Teacher with effect from 1.8.2008. (iv) and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if relief No.(ii) is granted. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 Revision would be disposed of without delay. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P8 Revision dated 20.1.2009, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and the fifth WPC No.3796/2009 4 respondent. (ii) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. (iii) The petitioner shall send copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition to respondents 4 and 5 separately by registered post and shall produce proof thereof before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl