IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36107 of 2010(K) PETITIONER: --------------- SMT.T.S.MINI, WHITE HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, LUTHERAN SCHOOLS, INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695523. 3. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA - 695121. 4. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA - 688 524. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 36107 OF 2010 K ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The case of the writ petitioner is the following: The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in Lutheran UP School, Ponvila, under the management of the second respondent, on 30.1.1998 in a leave vacancy which occurred for the period from 14.1.1998 to 19.3.1998. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval. The Manager filed appeal before the District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara, which was rejected as per order No.B6 816/98 dated 30.12.1999. Challenging the order dated 30.12.1999, the Manager filed a Revision before the Director of Public Instruction. As per order No.F1452/B6/98/DPI dated 18.5.2000, the Director of Public Instruction rejected the Revision on the ground that adjustment of thrown out teachers under the management was not completed. The petitioner was again appointed as LPSA from 9.6.1999 in the promotion vacancy of J.Thankamma. The proposal for approval in respect of that period was rejected by the Assistant Educational W.P.(C) NO.36107 OF 2010 K :: 2 :: Officer, as per order No.D2759/99/K.Dis. dated 26.7.1999. The appeal filed by the Manager against that order before the District Educational Officer was allowed as per order No.B1 7206/99/K.Dis. dated 31.1.2000. The District Educational Officer directed the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 9.6.1999, if the appointment was otherwise in order. The Assistant Educational Officer, as per the order dated 14.12.2000, again rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner on account of the pendency of O.P.No.8268 of 1999 filed by two thrown out teachers. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner submitted a Revision before the Director of Public Instruction. As per order No.K.Dis/F3/60698/2001 DPI dated 28.11.2001, the Director rejected the Revision. Aggrieved by that order, the Manager filed a Revision Petition dated 8.1.2002 before the first respondent. It is not specifically stated in the Writ Petition as to what transpired in respect of the matter pending before the Government. However, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 20.2.2010 before the Government, in which, a prayer is made to approve the appointment of the petitioner W.P.(C) NO.36107 OF 2010 K :: 3 :: with effect from 1.4.1996 to 19.3.1998 and from 9.6.1998 to 30.6.2004. Apparently, there is mistake in the prayer. The petitioner was not appointed on 1.4.1996. The petitioner has not produced any of the orders passed by the educational authorities. Therefore, the Court is not in a position to verify the correctness or otherwise of the various averments made in the Writ Petition. However, it is stated in the Writ Petition that the claims of the thrown out teachers were settled and their appointments were approved. Therefore, the petitioner submits that there is no impediment in considering Ext.P1 representation by the first respondent. I am not deciding any of the questions raised in the Writ Petition. The full facts are not stated in the Writ Petition. Relevant documents are not produced before Court. How the Revision filed by the Manager was disposed of by the Government is also not stated. However, taking note of the statement that the claims of all the other thrown out teachers were settled and therefore, the contention of the petitioner as raised in Ext.P1 representation can be considered, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: W.P.(C) NO.36107 OF 2010 K :: 4 :: a) The first respondent shall consider Ext.P1 representation and, if it is otherwise in order and maintainable, shall dispose of the same, 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 any other affected party. b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/