IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35008 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 45, W/O.SUDHAKARAN, "SREENILAYAM", THIRUVADI, P.O.THEKKEPOTTA, PUDUKOD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, U.P.S.A. SARVAJANA HIGH SCHOOL AT PUCHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI. RAVI .K ( PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE MANAGER, SARVAJANA HIGH SCHOOL, PUDUKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-698001. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35008 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a UPSA in an aided School with effect from 23.7.1999. There was a dispute regarding her approval, which was later granted with effect from 23.7.1999 itself by order dated 4.8.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner exercised her option for revision of pay in accordance with 2004 pay revision order and she opted to come over to the revised scale of pay with effect from 6.6.2005. The petitioner now wants to change the date of option as 1.7.2004 instead of 6.6.2005. The petitioner's request for the change of option date has been rejected by Ext.P9 on the ground that the time limit prescribed for re-option has already expired. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 seeking the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records leading to Ext P9 and may be pleased to quash the same. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to accept the reoption of the petitioner with the date 1/7/04 and consequently to provide all the service benefits emerging there from to the petitioner within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court.” W.P.(C)No.35008/10 2 The petitioner's contention is that, since the question of the approval of the petitioner's appointment was pending, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not filing the re-option within the prescribed time limit. I do not think that the petitioner's contention can be countenanced, in so far as the petitioner had in fact exercised her option once for which the delay in approval of appointment was not a bar. She puts forward the delay in passing orders on approval as an excuse only for the question of re-option. If the petitioner could file the original option in time, nothing prevented her from filing the re-option also within time. As such, the petitioner's contention that it is because of delay in passing orders on her approval cannot be countenanced now. Admittedly, the petitioner did not exercise the re-option within the period prescribed for the same by the Government. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to the re- option prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.35008/10 3 W.P.(C)No.35008/10 4