IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26416 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SMT.SHARI FRANCIS, D/O.FRANCIS, AGE 37, THOPPIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR KARA P.O., THRISSUR., TEACHER, AUPS, KANNARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MANAGER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL (AUPS), KANNARA, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THRISSUR. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 6. SMT.BETTY K.K., W/O.AUGUSTINE, HEADMISTRESS, AUPS, KANNARA, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26416 of 2008 T -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Lower Primary School Assistant in Aided Upper Primary School, Kannara since 6.6.2001. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was approved. 2. It is stated that the sixth respondent, the Headmistress, refuses to enter the names of 13 students studying in the first standard in the admission register, though they were duly admitted. According to the petitioner, this was done by the Headmistress in collusion with another teacher. The petitioner points out an incident which happened in the school in March, 2006 as the reason for such collusion. It is stated that the staff fixation was made as per Ext.P3. It is stated that those 13 students were available in the school on the date of inspection. But their names were not shown in the admission register. It is also stated that the District Educational Officer conducted an inspection on the basis of Ext.P1 representation dated 18.6.2008 submitted by the petitioner and other teachers and Ext.P2 proceedings dated 10.7.2008 was issued by the District Educational Officer. It was noticed by the WP(C) No.26416/2008 2 District Educational Officer that as per the rolls only 36 pupils were admitted in the first standard, but, at the time of inspection, 13 pupils who were not in the rolls were also found attending the class. 3. As per Ext.P3 staff fixation order, it was held that the effective strength of the pupils in the first standard was only 36. Accordingly, retrenchment of the petitioner and another teacher due to fall of one division was ordered. 4. The thirteen students referred to above filed O.S.No.2055 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur for a declaration that they were duly admitted in first standard and for other consequential reliefs. The suit is pending. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the order of the Civil Court. The Commissioner conducted a local inspection and submitted Ext.P4 report dated 14.8.2008. The Advocate Commissioner reported that at the time of inspection, there were 48 students in the first standard. The teachers of the school submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Secretary to the Education Department. The petitioner also filed Ext.P6 appeal dated 27.8.2008 challenging Ext.P3 staff fixation order. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:- WP(C) No.26416/2008 3 “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash Ext.P3 so far as petitioner is concerned by issue of a writ of certiorari or other writ order or direction. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling the 3rd respondent to refix the staff strength of 1st respondent school taking in to account the 13 students attending 1st standard whose names does not appear in admission register as regularly admitted in school in 1st standard for the academic year 2008-09. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 appeal on merits within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iv) Issue such other writ order or direction that may be necessary in the interest of justice.” WP(C) No.26416/2008 4 6. At the time when the Writ Petition came up for admission, it is pointed out that the remedy of appeal is not available to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 staff fixation order and only a revision would lie before the Director of Public Instruction against Ext.P3 staff fixation order. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 revision dated 2.9.2008 before the Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P7 revision is pending disposal. 7. The only relief pressed by the petitioner, for the time being, is for a direction to the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of Ext.P7 revision expeditiously. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Director of Public Instruction would dispose of Ext.P7 revision within a period of three months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:- (i) The Director of Public Instruction shall dispose of Ext.P7 revision, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 6, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months. (ii) The petitioner and respondents 1 and 6 would be entitled to produce such other documents and materials before the Director of Public Instruction in support of her contentions. WP(C) No.26416/2008 5 (iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of I.A.No.11652 of 2008 as well as certified copy of the judgment before the Director of Public Instruction. (iv) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment by registered post to the sixth respondent and shall produce proof of the same before the Director of Public Instruction. (v) The petitioner would be free to move the Director of Public Instruction for appropriate interim orders. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, termination of the petitioner would stand stayed for a period of two weeks. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks