IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22108 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FATHIMATH RAHEENA.V., LPSA, AMLPS, KUNDILPARAMBA, P.O.THENNALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENGARA. 4. THE MANAGER, AMLPS, KUNDILPARAMBA & AMLPS PULLITHARA, P.O.THENNALA, MALAPPURAM 676 511. 5. SHARANYA.M NAIR, LPSA, AMLPS, KUNDILPARAMBA, P.O.THENNALA, MALAPPURAM 676 511. 6. SHAMEER, LPSA, AMLPS, PULLITHARA, P.O.THENNALA, MALAPPURAM 676511. ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R5 SRI.M.R.ANISON FOR R5 SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:-COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXT.P2:-COPY OF APPEAL DATED 10.3.08 EXT.P3:-COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.17.12.2008 EXT.P4:- COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD.13.3.2009 OF R3. EXT.P5:- COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.23.6.2010 EXT.P6:- COPY OF GO(P) NO.10/10/G.EDN. DTD.12.1.2010 EXT.P7:- COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO R3 DTD.15.7.2010 RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.273/07 EXT.R1(b):-COPY OF GO(P) NO.70/79/G.EDN.DTD.2.5.1979 EXT.R1(c):- COPY OF FORM 27 EXT.R1(d):- COPY OF AMENDMENT DTD.25.5.2010 OF RULE 6 (viii) CHAPTER V. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as LPSA with effect from 25.7.2007 in an additional division post. The appointment of the petitioner was not approved on the ground that there was a ban imposed by the Government for sanctioning additional division. It is stated that the Manager filed Ext.P2 appeal before the District Educational Officer and the same is pending. While so, it is stated, the Manager appointed respondents 4 and 5, Sharanya M. Nair and Shameer, as LPSA in the school. The contention of the petitioner is that without recognizing the appointment of the petitioner, the Manager should not have appointed respondents 5 and 6. It is also stated that the appointments of respondents 5 and 6 have not been approved. The petitioner was not allowed to sign in the attendance register by the Headmistress. W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 2 2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following: “a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 4th respondent to execute the bond stipulated in Ext.P6 and further direct to resubmit the proposal before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent may be directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 25.7.2007 onwards with all consequential benefits. Or b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the appointment orders issued in favour of the 5th & 6th respondents from 1.6.2010 onwards and direct the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner in any one of the vacancies and forward the proposal for approval before the 3rd respondent. c. Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.” 3. It is submitted that GO(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 issued by the Government is under challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions. Therefore, at this stage, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the Manager to execute the bond as provided in GO(P) No.10/10. 4. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 3 submitted that appointment of the 5th respondent is legal and valid. 5. Since Ext.P2 appeal is pending before the District Educational Officer, Tirur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the District Educational Officer is directed to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal. The petitioner also submits that an opportunity may be afforded to make representation before the District Educational Officer. The request is just and reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The District Educational Officer shall dispose of Ext.P2 appeal filed by the Manager, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 4 an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and respondents 5 and 6. b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and copy of Ext.P7 which was produced along with I.A.No.10028 of 2010, before the District Educational Officer. The petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 would be entitled to bring to the notice of the District Educational Officer the subsequent developments, so that the District Educational Officer would be able to not only dispose of Ext.P2 appeal but also to issue appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms