IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26245 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TEENA ABRAHAM, KOLLAMPADICKAL, EDAYARANMULA, NOW RESIDING AT CHEMBAKASSERIL KADAVIL, PUTHANKAVU POST, ANGANDICKAL, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANAGER, A.M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAYARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA, 689 532. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, A.M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDYARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 532. 4. SUSAN VARGHESE, MENAMVEETTIL HOUSE, THURUTHIKKAD, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS H.S.S.T. A.M.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAYARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, 689 532. ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2-3 SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR FOR R2-3 SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN FOR R2-3 SRI.BENOY THOMAS FOR R4 SRI.PAULSON THOMAS FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.24370/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24370 of 2010 & W.P.(C) No.26245 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No.24370 of 2010 is filed by Soosan Varghese while W.P.(C) No.26245 of 2010 is filed by Teena Abraham. Both the petitioners were working in AMM Higher Secondary School, Edayaranmula in Pathanamthitta. 2. In the Writ Petition filed by Soosan Varghese, respondents 5 to 7 are Biju C.Thomas, Varghese Mathew Tharakan and Teena Abraham. The reliefs prayed for by Soosan Varghese are the following : “(i) declare that the 5th respondent who proceeded on LWA from HSST (PT/Jr) post under the provisions of KSR on 16.8.1995, on expiry of his long LWA, has only a right to rejoin duty against HSST part-time/junior post against which the junior most viz. 7th respondent is working whose appointment has to be treated as against leave vacancy of 5th respondent. WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 2 (ii) declare that the 5th respondent has no claim against promotions/appointments made against higher post viz. HSST in respect of vacancies originated during his leave period. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 not to disturb the petitioner who is working as HSST (Full time) on her promotion with effect from 24.8.1998 made and approved during the period of leave of the fifth respondent, in the event of the fifth respondent rejoining duty or at any rate (iv) declare that the 6th respondent is the person appointed in the leave vacancy of the fifth respondent as HSST (Junior) English as evident from Ext.P3 order of the Director and that the re-joining duty of the 5th respondent on expiry of leave will not affect the petitioner who is working as approved HSST (Full time with effect from 24.8.1998) in any manner whatsoever and issue a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to revise Ext.P2 accordingly. (v) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 3 3. In the Writ Petition filed by Teena Abraham, the fourth respondent is Susan Varghese. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition filed by Teena Abraham are the following : “(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P3 representation without any further delay. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioner continuing as H.S.S.T (Jr.) English in the A.M.M. Higher Secondary School, Edyaranmula till the said post exists or till the date of her retirement whichever is earlier. (c) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue as H.S.S.T. (Jr.) English in the A.M.M. Higher Secondary School, Edayaranmula till the said post exists or till the date of her retirement. (d) issue such other writ, direction or order as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 4 justice.” 4. In fact both these Writ Petitions were filed prematurely by Soosan Varghese and Teena Abraham anticipating certain things and on the basis of such anticipation, they formulated their arguments and filed Writ Petitions for imaginary reliefs. 5. On hearing Advocate Sri.Paulson Thomas and Advocate Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, the following facts are revealed : One Biju C.Thomas was appointed in the school as HSST (English) (Part Time) on 12.9.1991. Biju C.Thomas availed leave without allowance in the year 1995 for going abroad. The leave without allowance was being extended from time to time and it was extended till 30.8.2010. In the leave vacancy which arose on granting leave without allowance to Biju C.Thomas, Varghese Mathew Tharakan, respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.24370 of 2010, was appointed as HSST (English) (Part Time) on 15.7.1997. WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 5 6. The case of Teena Abraham is the following: Later a permanent vacancy of HSST (Junior) (English) arose in the school and Varghese Mathew Tharakan was appointed in that vacancy. On 1.10.1997, Soosan Varghese was appointed in the leave vacancy of Biju C.Thomas and she continued as such. In the year 2000, another permanent vacancy of HSST (Junior) (English) arose in the school. On 23.6.2004, the Manager appointed Teena Abraham, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26245 of 2010, in that vacancy. The appointment of Teena Abraham was approved by the Director of Higher Secondary Education as per his proceedings dated 29.6.2005. Biju C.Thomas expressed his intention to rejoin duty by the end of August, 2010. The Manager took the stand that Teena Abraham should be sent out in order to accommodate Soosan Varghese. At that time, Teena Abraham filed W.P.(C) No.26245 of 2010 for the reliefs quoted above. According to Teena Abraham, she was appointed in a permanent post and her appointment was approved. Therefore, there was no question of retrenchment of Teena Abraham in the event of Biju C.Varghese rejoining duty after the term of leave without allowance. WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 6 7. The case of Soosan Varghese is slightly different. According to her, in 1997, when Varghese Mathew Tharakan was appointed, it was a part time vacancy of HSST (Junior) (English). Biju C.Thomas was also working as HSST (English) (Part Time) when he availed leave. That post was upgraded as HSST with effect from 1.8.1997. Varghese Mathew Tharakan was appointed in that upgraded vacancy. Another post of HSST (Junior) (English) arose in the School in 1997-1998 and Soosan Varghese was appointed to that permanent post on 1.10.1997. That junior post was upgraded as HSST in 1998-1999 and on 24.8.1998, Soosan Varghese was appointed as HSST. Her appointment as HSST was approved. In these circumstances, in the event of Biju Thomas rejoining duty, service of Soosan Varghese cannot be retrenched nor could she be reverted. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Manager submitted that the appointment of Teena Abraham was approved till the post exists and it was temporary and provisional. The learned senior counsel also submitted that as per the proceedings of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, the WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 7 appointment of Soosan Varghese was approved till Biju C.Thomas rejoins duty after leave. It is also submitted that the Manager issued an order dated 29.8.2010 by which Biju C.Thomas was allowed to rejoin duty after the expiry of the leave and he is promoted and posted as HSST. Soosan Varghese was accordingly reverted as HSST (Junior) (English) with effect from 30.8.2010. Teena Abraham who was appointed as temporary and provisional HSST (Junior) (English) was relieved with effect from 20.8.2010. 9. The learned counsel appearing for Soosan Varghese and Teena Abraham submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Manager on 29.8.2010 and that they propose to produce that document as additional document and they propose to seek additional reliefs. 10. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking leave to amend the Writ Petition and to seek additional reliefs. The Writ Petitions were premature. The Writ Petitions were filed at a time when no WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 8 order was passed by the Manager. Now an order dated 29.8.2010 is passed by the Manager. The remedy of Teena Abraham and Soosan Varghese is to challenge the same before the Director of Higher Secondary Education. 11. The learned counsel appearing for Teena Abraham and Soosan Varghese submitted that they would be challenging the order passed by the Manager before the Director and that in the facts and circumstances, the Director may be directed to resolve the dispute by hearing all the necessary parties within the shortest possible time. 12. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not think that it is necessary to decide the disputed questions of fact in these Writ Petitions. The subsequent developments also would not enable Soosan Varghese and Teena Abraham to challenge the order passed by the Manager directly before the High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. Since they expressed their desire to approach the Director, it is only proper to direct the Director of WPC Nos.26245 & 24370/2010 9 Higher Secondary Education to dispose of the revision petitions that would be filed by Soosan Varghese and Teena Abraham. The Director of Higher Secondary Education shall dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of revisions. Teena Abraham and Soosan Varghese shall produce a copy of the respective Writ Petition filed by them and a certified copy of the judgment before the Director of Higher Secondary Education. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl