IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28206 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JESSY.M.J., LOWER GRADE HINDI TEACHER, GUHANANDAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),KOLLAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER (THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER) GUHANANDAPURAM HIGH SCHOOL, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28206/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.B6/4309/2000/KM DT 7.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE DEO. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT 4.7.2002 BY THE MANAGER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DT 14.8.2003 by the MANAGER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 21.7.2003. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt) NO.518/05/G.EDN. DT 4.2.2005. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 11.2.2005. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT 14.11.2003. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/22911/2003/D.DIS.DT 9.2.2004. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(P) NO.169/04/G.EDN. DT 15.6.2004. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3/12269/04/K.DIS DT 15.7.2004. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 20.10.2004, BY THE MANAGER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET186552/04/D.DIS DT 1.4.2005. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 19.5.2005 IN WPC NO.10761/05. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3.3.2006 BY THE MANAGER TO THE PETITIOENR 12269/04/K.DIS DT 15.7.2004. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2008 IN WA NO.2425/2005. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.39464/E1/08/G.EDN. DT 8.7.2008. WPC NO.28206/08 -2- EXT.P17: TRUE COPY FO THE ORDER DT 6.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEO, KOLLAM. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE FRESH PROPOSAL OF MANAGER FOR PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT ORDER DT 3.3.2006. EXT.P18(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING OF THE MANAGER ON 10/11/2008. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SHASHTYAPDAPOORTHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 28206 OF 2008 (G) ==================== Dated this the 21th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a Rule 51A claimant, who was appointed by Ext.P14 as a Lower Grade Hindi teacher w.e.f. 1/7/03, in the school of which the 5th respondent is the Receiver Manager. The approval was rejected by Ext.P14(a) and the reasons stated are, want of vacancy and that the proposal was received belatedly. Petitioner pursued the matter before the Departmental authorities and finally by filing a revision before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent rejected the revision by Ext.P16 order dated 8/7/08 stating that in view of the pendency of WA 2425/05, the claim for approval cannot be considered. 2. Petitioner submits that she was appointed against the promotion vacancy of Sri.S.Rajeevan and the dispute which was the subject matter to the Writ Appeal referred to above was regarding approval of his appointment. It is stated that the Writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment of this court dated 6/8/08, declaring that Sri.S.Rajeevan as the rightful claimant for the post of HSA to which he was promoted. It is stated that following Ext.P15 judgment, by Ext.P17, Sri.S.Rajeevan's appointment was approved. According to the petitioner, the pendency of the Writ appeal was the only reason for rejecting her revision and now that by Ext.P15, the WPC 28206/08 :2 : writ appeal has been disposed of, the reason stated in Ext.P16 order for rejecting the revision is totally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 3. As already noticed, the only reason for rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P14 order, refusing approval to her appointment was the pendency of WA 2425/05, filed by Sri.S.Rajeevan in whose promotion vacancy petitioner was appointed. Now that the writ appeal has been disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment of this court, the revision filed by the petitioner deserves to be considered on merits. 4. In order to enable the 4th respondent to reconsider the revision, I quash Ext.P16 and direct the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on the revision petition dated 16/10/06 filed by the petitioner and the revision filed by the 5th respondent, aggrieved by the rejection of approval of the petitioner's appointment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment with notice to both the parties.. 5. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ appeal judgment in WA 2425/05 before the 4th respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp