IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1666 of 2009(W) PETITIONERS: 1. P.A.SHAHANA W/O. AZEEZ, AGED 30 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) M.E.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SREENARAYAPURAM P.VEMBALLUR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. V.A.SAKEENA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) M.E.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SREENARAYAPURAM P.VEMBALLUR KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KOZHIKODE 673 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 1666 OF 2009 W ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are High School Assistants in M.E.S.Higher Secondary School, Sreenarayanapuram in Thrissur District. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed as H.S.A.(Malayalam) with effect from 25.7.2005 and 18.6.2004 onwards respectively. The District Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioners on the ground that protected teachers were not appointed in the newly opened school. The Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal filed by the Manager. The further appeal filed by the Manager before the Director of Public Instruction was dismissed as per Ext.P2 order dated 23.2.2008. The Manager has filed a Revision before the Government against Ext.P2 order The petitioners have also filed Exts.P3 and P4 Revisions before the Government challenging Ext.P2 order. The Revisions filed by the Manager as well as the petitioners are pending disposal before the first respondent. Petitioners rely on Exts.P8 to P17 in support of their contentions. Exts.P8 to P10 relate to appointment of three protected High School Assistants in the School. Appointments made even before Exts.P8 to P10 were approved by Exts.P11 to P15. The petitioners contend that similar treatment should have been extended W.P.(C) NO.1666 OF 2009 :: 2 :: to them also, the Manager having complied with the necessity to appoint protected teachers in the newly opened school. Exts.P16 and P17 are orders in respect of the appointments in other schools, on which the petitioner rely, on the ground that Government had approved appointments in similar circumstances. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P2 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order so far as the petitioners are concerned; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda to approve the appointments of the Petitioners as High School Assistants (Malayalam) from 25.7.2005 and 18.6.2004 onwards and disburse the salary and allowances from the date of their appointments forthwith. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibits P3 and P4 within a reasonable time after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners taking into account Exhibits P11 to P18 orders and Exhibits P19 and P20 judgments; (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” W.P.(C) NO.1666 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, for the time being, the petitioners would be satisfied if relief (iii) is granted leaving open their right to seek the other reliefs at the appropriate stage. Learned Government Pleader submitted that Exts.P3 and P4 Revisions would be disposed of at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 Revisions and also the Revision filed by the Manager against Ext.P2 order, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the Manager. The first respondent shall take into account the relevant documents among Exts.P8 to P18 and also consider the binding precedents. b) The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. W.P.(C) NO.1666 OF 2009 :: 4 :: c) The petitioners shall send a copy of the Writ Petition and 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 ahz/