IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2007 / 21ST PAUSHA 1928 WP(C).No. 681 of 2007(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ROSAMMA JOSEPH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER (PROTECTED) L.M. HIGH SCHOOL, VENMANI, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.M.S.NISHAD RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE MANAGER, VISWABHARATHI MODEL HIGH SCHOOL, PANAYANARKAVU, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE HEADMISTRESS, LOHIA MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, VENMANI, CHENGANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SHRI A. J. VARGHESE) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 681 OF 2007 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2007 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner has twentysix years of service and has got special grade. On account of the fall in student strength, petitioner was declared protected and she was allowed to continue. Ext.P1 is the list of protected teachers in which petitioner figures at Sl. No.146. Though she is entitled to continue in the School, she came to be deployed by Ext.P2 to work for three days in the parent School and two days in the Government Boys' High School, Chengannur. Petitioner filed a representation against the same. As she had completed twentythree years, she was entitled to be retained in the same School as per Ext.P4. Ext.P3 was not considered and petitioner did not complain as the GBHS, Chengannur was close to her parent School. Petitioner was, however, served with Ext.P5 dated 11.12.2006. It is an order issued by third respondent WP(C) NO. 681/07 F 2 appointing the petitioner as Physical Education Teacher in place of the Teacher who retired with effect from 31.3.2006. According to petitioner, she has filed Ext.P6 representation before second respondent, Deputy Director. While Ext.P6 was pending consideration, second respondent issued a communication to the Headmasters of the School in which petitioner is working, directing to relieve the petitioner so as to join the third respondent's School by Ext.P7. Petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P7 and seeks a mandamus to retain her in the fourth respondent's School. 2. In the Statement filed by the second respondent, it is stated that for getting the benefit of Ext.P4 Order, it is necessary to file the proposal for retention in the parent School before the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara at the time of staff fixation. It is stated that any objection or appeal against protection or deployment orders should have been filed by the petitioner before the competent Authority on receipt of staff fixation order, which is not done in this case. It is stated further WP(C) NO. 681/07 F 3 that if any appeal is submitted before the office of the second respondent against the staff fixation order, it will be considered on merits and appropriate orders passed in due course. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. If a Manager is aggrieved by staff fixation order, it is true that an Appeal lies before the Deputy Director under Rule 12D of Chapter XXIII KER. But, no Appeal lies against the staff fixation order by an aggrieved Teacher. Therefore, it may not be competent for a Teacher to file an Appeal. But, the Teacher is not without remedy as it is open to the Teacher to file a Revision Petition invoking Rule 12E(3) of Chapter XXIII KER. Therefore, in view of the stand taken by the second respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner prefers a Revision Petition under Rule 12E (3) of Chapter XXIII KER against the staff fixation order within a period of one week from today before the Director of Public Instruction, the Director of Public Instruction will consider the WP(C) NO. 681/07 F 4 same after hearing the petitioner and all other affected persons, and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of filing the Revision Petition. Petitioner shall not be relieved pursuant to Exts.P5 and P7 for a period of two weeks from today. If the petitioner moves an application seeking interim relief against her being deployed, the Director of Public Instruction will pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner also, within a period of one week from the date of filing of such application for interim relief. In order to facilitate the said hearing, petitioner will appear before the Director of Public Instruction at 11 A.M. On 19.1.2007. I leave open the contentions of the petitioner. A copy of this Judgment shall be produced by petitioner along with the Revision Petition. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.