IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33869 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.R. PREETHI, W/O. SUNILKUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, SREE DURGAVILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 020. 3. THE MANAGER, SREE DURGAVILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 545. 4. C.B. SHAILAJA, SREE DURGAVILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 545. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. M.A.FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33869 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A 254 OF 1972. EXHIBIT-P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) 4327/2008/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT-P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L5/11-12 OF THE MANAGER EXHIBIT-P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE ln T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33869 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is an approved Upper Primary School Assistant working in the school from 2.6.2004. A vacancy of High School Assistant(Sanskrit) arose on 1.6.2011 and the petitioner even though staked his claim for that post, the Manager appointed the 4th respondent herein, by promotion. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent's appointment as Junior Sanskrit Teacher has not been approved and therefore she staked the claim for promotion under Rule 43-B of Chapter XIV-A KER. 2. The petitioner even though approached the Manager, he gave a reply as per Exhibit P3 stating that the petitioner's application cannot be considered in the light of Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A KER. Again, she has filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer as per Exhibit P4 by registered post. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the 4th respondent has not been approved so W.P.(C)No.33869/11 -2- far and therefore the District Educational Officer,who is the approving authority, may be directed to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner as per Exhibit P4. 4. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer to consider the objection raised by the petitioner as per Exhibit P4, before passing any order on the approval of appointment of the 4th respondent, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of this judgment to the 2nd respondent for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn