IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24135 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- BINU C.S.LG SANSKRIT TEACHER PART TIME, K.V.K.V.M.U.P.S.,CHERIYAZHIKKAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER, K.V.K.V.M.U.P.S., CHERIYAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24135 of 2008 W -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher (Part Time) in the fifth respondent's school. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Part Time Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 4.6.2007 onwards against the retirement vacancy of Smt. B.Suseela. The Manager forwarded the proposal for appointment to the Assistant Educational Officer for approval. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the appointment of the petitioner for the reason that the school is a newly opened one and the vacancy was to be filled up by appointing a protected teacher. On appeal, the District Educational Officer rejected the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. The Manager preferred a revision to the Director of Public Instruction who disposed of the revision as per Ext.P2 order dated 26.5.2008. The Director of Public Instruction held in Ext.P2 as follows:- “The revision petition has been examined in detail in consultation with the Assistant Educational Officer and the rules now in force. As per GO(P)46/06/GEdn. Dt.1.2.2006 the appeal can be allowed on daily wages since there is no protected teacher for deployment as reported by the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam. WP(C) No.24135/2008 2 In the circumstances the revision petition preferred by the manager is allowed and the Assistant Educational Officer, Karunagappally is directed to approve the appointment of Sri.Binu.C.S. as Junior Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 4.6.2007 onwards on daily wages, if it is otherwise in order.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the reason stated in Ext.P2 order for rejecting the approval is not sustainable as per the existing rules. It is stated that there was no existing protected Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher (Part Time) and, therefore, there was no impediment in approving the appointment of the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P2 order the petitioner has filed a statutory revision petition dated 21.7.2008 (Ext.P4) before the first respondent. Ext.P4 is pending disposal. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:- “I. Call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari II. Issue a writ, of mandamus or other writ order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders WP(C) No.24135/2008 3 on Ext.P4 revision petition after hearing the petitioner and pass necessary orders granting approval of the appointment made by the 5th respondent. III. Issue a writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to declare the petitioner's appointment is a regular appointment. iv. to grant such other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court just and for in the circumstances of the case.” 4. In view of the pendency of Ext.P4 revision, the only relief to which the petitioner is entitled to, for the present, is to direct the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 revision. 5. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent. Learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:- WP(C) No.24135/2008 4 (1) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4 revision dated 21.7.2008 filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager. (2) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to produce such other materials and documents before the first respondent in support of his contentions. (3) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment to the fifth respondent by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks WP(C) No.24135/2008 5