IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18444 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABIDA S., AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, CHAMALKKARA HOUSE, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUANANTHAPURAM- 695020. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. VICTORY GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEADMISTRESS. 2. THE PRESIDENT, P.T.A VICTORY GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION/ NOON MEAL SUPERVISOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1-2 BY ADVS.SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD R3 BY SMT.M.T.SHEEBA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 18444 of 2011(E) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 08.03.2010 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE D.E.O. BALARAMAPURAM, DATED 14.06.2011. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE D.P.I., DATED 10.06.2011. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.06.2011 GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE vk T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 18444 of 2011-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to reinstate her in the work of noon meal cook of the first respondent school. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working as a Cook for the last seven years till she was prevented from the work by the present Headmistress from June 2011. She was getting Rs.100/- per day as wages. 2. It is also contended that complaints were put against it by her. Ext.P1 the copy of the termination notice issued to the petitioner, against which she appears to have approached the Deputy Director of Education and the Deputy Director of Education called for the report of the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P2. These two are of the year 2010. Ext.P3 is the complaint stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the Director of Public Instruction. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that till July, 2007 one Smt. Satyabhama was working as a Cook. The allegations raised in the writ petition against the Headmistress, wpc 18444/2011 2 have been denied. It is explained in para 6 of the counter affidavit that there were complaints against the petitioner from students and their parents with regard to the attitude of the petitioner in the matter of preparation and serving of the noon meals. The noon feeding committee after discussing about the complaints, decided that if the present state of affairs continue, necessary action will have to be taken against the petitioner, which is evident from Ext.R1(a) minutes. 4. The show cause notice, Ext.R1(b) is dated 1.3.2010. It is stated that no explanation was offered by the petitioner and consequently the termination notice was issued. It is explained further that the District Educational Officer sought explanation from the Headmistress and and explanation was submitted also. Reliance is placed on a communication of the Assistant Educational Officer dated 18.1.2011, that the power to appoint and terminate the Cook for noon meal programme is vested absolutely with the Headmistress and noon feeding committee. 5. Evidently, therefore, it was upto the noon meal committee to take action against the petitioner. Therefore, the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 is that the petitioner has been properly disengaged after issuance of show cause notice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no wpc 18444/2011 3 proper decision by the noon feeding committee in the matter. At any rate, the engagement cannot be said to be a statutory one. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in examining the questions raised in this writ petition. 7. Ext.P4 is a complaint submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent. It is upto the third respondent to verify the said complaint and take a decision after notice to both parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/