IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19337 of 2005(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P. SMITHA, AGED 34 YEARS, WIFE OF ULLAS KUMAR, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KOOTHUPARAMBA HIGH SCHOOL P.O. KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TELLICHERRY, P.O. TELLICHERRY, KANNUR. 4. SHRI. R.K. RAGHAVAN, MANAGER, KOOTHUPARAMBA HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, P.O. KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR. 5. SRI. SREEJITH S.R., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ENGLISH) KOOTHUPARAMBA HIGH SCHOOL P.O. KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN, R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 19337 of 2005(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1; COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 2715/2005-W. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1820/05/G1. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/10033/03/D.DIS. OF DIST. EDL. OFFICER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETER NO.9905/A2/2004/G1. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM3/77/224/04/DPI/ D.DIS. OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.67679/J1/2002/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-3128/2005/K.DIS. OF THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER, THALASSERY EXT.P9: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2001 (3) K.L.T. 161. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2674/2004/GED. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.5/89/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DPI DATED 29/07/2005 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005. EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE D.E.O. THALASSERI, DATED 21/01/2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19337 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a UPSA in the 4th respondent's aided school on 11.9. 2002. According to her, she is qualified for promotion as HSA under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV of K.E.R. In 2002, the Government issued a Government order creating a new cadre of English Teacher in high schools. A litigation arose as to the validity of that Government order. That was finally settled in W.A. No. 2316/2002 dated 16.11.2002 upholding the Government order. But, in that judgment, this Court protected the claims of persons who have been appointed already under Rules 43 and 51A of Chapter XIV of KER contrary to the said Government order. The petitioner seeks the benefit of that protection incorporated in the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No. 2316/2002. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a. Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. b. declare that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion as H.S.A (Maths) against the vacancy caused by Sri. C. Gangadharan.” 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. According to him, the petitioner was a UPSA for the period W.P(C) No. 19337 of 2005 -: 2 :- from 11.9.2002 to 18.12.2002. She was again appointed on 1.7.2004. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits reserved by the said judgment. He further points out that even otherwise, the protection is in respect of persons who have been appointed giving the benefit of Rules 43 and 51A. In this case, the petitioner was never given any promotion under Rule 43 so as to enable the petitioner to claim the benefit of the judgment. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. On both counts, I am inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was a UPSA for the period from 11.9.2002 to 18.12.2002 and thereafter from1.7.2004 onwards. The petitioner was also not given any promotion by virtue of Rule 43 at any time. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the protection given in W.A.No. 2316/202. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/