IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13240 of 2008(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ L.GEETHA DEVI, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL SCIENCE) NOW UNDER PROTECTION IN THE VACANY OF UPSA,S.H.V.H.S.,KARAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT RESIDING AT THUNGA, THONNALLOOR P.O. PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MAVELIKKARA 5. MANAGER, S.H.V.H.S., KARAKKAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 6. HEADMISTRESS, S.H.V.H.S. KARAKKAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 7. ASHA BINDU, UPSA, S.H.V.H.S. KARAKKAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT WPC NO.13240/08 -2- 8. SRI.SUNIL, UPSA S.H.V.H.S. KARAKKAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 9. SMT. E.P. SUVARNAKUMARI, UPSA S.H.V.H.S. KARAKKAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R5 & 6 SRI.R.VINU RAJ FOR R5 & 6 SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM FOR R7 SRI.K.N.KUMARASWAMY SARMA FOR R7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN FOR R8,9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13240/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.178/2002/G.EDN. DT 28/6/2002. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 8.8.2005 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.B2/6679/2005 DT 10/8/05 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-21529/05/DT 31/8/05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RLIEVING ORDER DT 4.10.2005. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPYOF GO(RT) NO.1962/05/EDN DT 16.5.2005. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B2/4932/06 DT 13/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER in the PROCEEDINGS DT 13/7/2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/1727/07/D.EN DT 28.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.4/05/G.EDN. DT 4/1/2005. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS 19220/07/RA(1) DPI DT 28.4.2007. EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.156 DT 6.4.2008. EXT.P14: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ET2/39496/08/DPI DT 8.8.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 13240 OF 2008 (A) ==================== Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P13. Ext.P8 is the staff fixation order for the year 2007-08. As far as this order is concerned, petitioner had filed a revision before the DPI and that resulted in Ext.P14 order dated 8/8/08 rejecting the same. Now that the revision has been rejected by Ext.P14, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Government by availing of statutory remedies and therefore the challenge against Ext.P8 raised in this writ petition is left open to be pursued in the manner as above. 2. Now what remains is the challenge against Ext.P13. Ext.P13 is a communication issued by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent informing that since there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner, she may be deployed in a suitable place w.e.f. 23/3/2008. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that while working as HSA, following the staff fixation order for 2004-05, though the petitioner was deployed w.e.f. 18/10/04, she was appointed to a regular promotion vacancy in the parent school as UPSA, as per Ext.P4 order. In view of this, stand taken is that the petitioner has no reason to WPC 13240/08 :2 : be deployed as stated in Ext.P13. Since the position is as above, for the present, the petitioner is not liable to be deployed as stated in Ext.P13. In view of this, as at present, petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved about Ext.P13. Writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp