IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9272 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.G.SUSHEELAMONI AMMA, SEWING TEACHER, T.K.D.M.U.P. SCHOOL,NADUVILEMURI, SOORANAD, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DIST., RESIDING AT KURUMPOLIL HOUSE, PAYYANELLUR P.O., SOORANDU, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. MR.M.K.SREEGESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SASTHAMKOTTA. 5. THE MANAGER, T.K.D.M. U.P. SCHOOL, NADUVILEMURI, SOORANAD, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B. REMANI R5 BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 9272/2004-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE OVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO.G.O.RT.NO.730/87/GE. DATED 07/03/1987 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT SANCTIONING A POST OF SEWING TEACHER AS A VERY SPECIAL CASE IN THE T.K.D.M. U.P. SCHOOL, SOORNAD, KOLLAM FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER w.e.f. 07/03/1987. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER RT NO.2438/89/GE DATED 31/07/1989 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S SCHOOL. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEARING ORDER NO.DDISs/4309/2003/RA4/DPI DATED 09/06/2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.MS NO.56/71/S.EDN. DATED TRIVANDRUM 19/05/1971 REGARDING ORDERS ON CONVERSION OF PART TIME POSTS INTO FULL TIME POSTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9272 of 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated 1st April, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the fifth respondent's school on 4.06.1984. Since there was no sanctioned post of Sewing Teacher against which such appointment could have been made, the Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve that appointment. The Manager carried the matter in appeal and ultimately to the Government in revision. The Government by Ext.P1 order passed on 7.3.1987 sanctioned a post of Sewing Teacher in the fifth respondent's school in relaxation of the rules with effect from the date of the order. Ext.P1 specifically recites that it has been issued in relaxation of the rules with effect from 7.3.1987 in order to enable the appointment of the petitioner to be approved. Pursuant to Ext.P1, petitioner's appointment was approved with effect from 7.3.1987 to 31.3.1987 as Part time Sewing Teacher. When the approval was not extended beyond 31.3.1987, she moved the Government. The Government thereupon issued Ext.P2 order dated 31.7.1989 sanctioning one post of Part time WP(C).No.9272/2004 2 Sewing Teacher in the fifth respondent's school from 1988-89 onwards in relaxation of rules and also directed that the appointment of the petitioner will be approved with effect from 1988-89 continuously. 3. Long thereafter, the petitioner again claimed that her appointment during the period from 4.6.1984 till 7.3.1987 may be approved. That request was declined by the Director of Public Instruction by Ext.P3 order dated 9.6.2003. Exts.P2 and P3 are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to approve her appointment as Part time Sewing Teacher with effect from 4.6.1984. The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 essentially on two grounds. The first contention is that she had worked as Sewing Teacher from 1984 to 1987 and therefore, she is entitled to payment of salary and allowances during the said period. She also contends relying on Ext.P4 Government order that only Full time post of Sewing Teacher can be sanctioned and therefore her appointment has to be approved as Full time Sewing Teacher. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that the student strength did not warrant even a Part time post and that the Government issued Exts.P1 and P2 orders, as a special case in relaxation of the rules with a view to WP(C).No.9272/2004 3 ensure that the appointment of the petitioner as Sewing Teacher is approved at least with effect from 7.3.1987. 4. The pleadings disclose that when the petitioner was appointed on 4.6.1984, there was no sanctioned post of Sewing Teacher. This was for the reason that the student strength did not warrant the sanctioning of a Full time post or even a Part time post of Sewing Teacher. As per the rules then in force, one post of Sewing Teacher could have been sanctioned only if the strength of girl students was 200 and above. As a matter of fact, the respondents have stated that the student strength right from the institution of the school did not warrant the sanctioning of the post of Sewing Teacher. However, as a special case, the Government relaxed the rules and directed the Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Part time Sewing Teacher which was sanctioned in relaxation of the rules. After Ext.P1 order was issued, the petitioner again moved the Government in a petition dated 9.11.1988 seeking approval of her appointment with effect from 4.6.1984 onwards instead of 7.3.1987. That request was declined by Ext.P2 order dated 31.7.1989. She did not challenge Ext.P2 in time. She moved the Director of Public Instruction long thereafter in the year 1999 seeking the same relief. That was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 9.6.2003. In WP(C).No.9272/2004 4 my opinion, in the light of Ext.P2 order passed by the Government, the Director of Public Instruction could not have allowed her request. 5. Ext.P2 order was passed on 31.7.1989. Nearly 15 years thereafter this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2. In the light of the fact that the petitioner could continue in service only by virtue of Ext.P2 which in fact was a concession extended to her, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P2 at this distance of time. The challenge to Ext.P3 also cannot therefore be entertained. As an officer subordinate to the Government, the Director of Public Instruction could not have deviated from Ext.P2. I therefore find no merit in this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS