IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30311 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. FASNA T.V., D/O. LATE T.V.MOHAMMED MASTER, "CRESENT HOUSE", PANDANILAM P.O., PIN-673 571, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RASIYA BEEVI, W/O. LATE T.V.MOHAMMED MASTER, "CRESENT HOUSE", PADANILAM P.O., PIN-673 571, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 573. 4. MUKKAM MUSLIM ORPHANAGE COMMITTEE (REGD.), MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 602, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD R4 BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1442 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30311/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER, DATED NIL P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 30/04/2010. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/2721/10 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 18/06/2010. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/07/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.30311/2010-L and 1442/2011-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No.1442/2011 is filed at the instance of the Manager of a school and the challenge is against the direction contained in Ext.P4 order issued by the Government which is addressed to the District Educational Officer. As per the said order, the Government directed the second respondent to take action against the Manager under Chapter III Rule 7 K.E.R., for not giving appointment to the Rule 51-B claimant and consequential orders have been passed by the District Educational Officer. 2. In W.P.(C) No.30311/2010 the challenge is against Ext.P4 communication issued by the Manager rejecting the application for appointment, given by the first petitioner therein. The petitioners therein are the daughter and wife of late T.V. Mohammed. 3. Late T.V. Mohammed was the Principal of T.T.I., Mukkam, of which the fourth respondent is said to be the Manager. The first petitioner is having the qualification B.A. and B.Ed. 4. Heard parties. 5. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.30311/2010 is that the wpc 30311/2010 & 1442/2011 2 first petitioner is qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant and a proper application was submitted as evident from Ext.P2. As per Ext.P3 the third respondent directed the fourth respondent to take steps to appoint the petitioner. In spite of Ext.P3 communication, the Manager rejected the application. 6. The pleadings in W.P.(C) No.1442/2011 shows that the Manager has taken the stand that Ext.P4 direction was issued without hearing the Manager. It is also his case that the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30311/2010 is not eligible to be appointed and various factors have been pointed out. 7. I am not considering the matter on merits. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.30311/2010 that the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in the said writ petition has elaborated the claims of the first petitioner and it is also pointed out that overlooking the claims of the first petitioner, the Manager made a fresh appointment. 8. Evidently, Ext.P4 is issued without hearing the Manager. When a positive direction is issued which obliges the Manager to appoint a particular person, he should have been heard in the matter. Evidently, wpc 30311/2010 & 1442/2011 3 Ext.P4 produced in W.P.(C) No.1442/2011 is issued in the form of a letter to the District Educational Officer. 9. In that view of the matter, Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.1442/2011 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision after notice to both parties, which will be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in the meanwhile, if any appointment is made by the Manager, the same will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Government. The same direction will govern W.P.(C) No.30311/2010 also. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/