IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26370 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.JAYASREE, H.S.A.(HINDI), VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL NADUVATTOM, PALLIPAD, HARIPAD (VIA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR ADDL.R5 SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR ADDL.R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) NO. 26370 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was originally appointed as a Hindi Teacher in 1989. Subsequently she was promoted as HSA (Hindi). In fact, the said appointment and promotion were approved. Pursuant to the staff fixation for the year 2006- 07 the petitioner had faced a threat of reversion to the lower post. However, by applying the teacher student ratio of 1:40 the fourth respondent granted protection to the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to continue in the post of HSA(Hindi). The third respondent interfered with the said order on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of G.O.(P) No.4/2005/G.Edn. dated 04.01.2005. Ultimately, that matter was taken up before the Government in revision. The said revision petition filed challenging the order of the third respondent was dismissed as per Exhibit P12. Exhibit P12 WP (C) NO. 26370 of 2010 2 reads thus: I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform that as per G.O.(P)No.4/05/G.Edn. dated 04.01.2005, 1:40 teacher student ratio can be applied only for accommodating teachers facing retrenchment and will not be applicable in the case of teachers facing reversion to the lower post. Hence, your request to retain in the HS section is not admissible. The revision petition is rejected. It is thus obvious from Exhibit P12 that, the said revision petition was rejected based on the aforesaid G.O. dated 04.01.2005 holding that she is not entitled to get the benefit of 1:40 teacher student ratio. Subsequently, Government have issued G.O. (P) No. 12/08/G.Edn dated 09.01.2008 extending the benefit of 1:40 teacher student ratio even in the case of teachers who are facing reversion to the lower post. However, the said benefit is confined only to those persons who are facing such situation from 2007-08 onwards. Off late, WP (C) NO. 26370 of 2010 3 Government have issued G.O.(P) No.41/2010/G.Edn dated 23.03.2010. As per the same the benefit of G.O dated 09.01.2008 is made applicable for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. In the light of the said position Exhibit P12 requires reconsideration. In fact, the contention of the petitioner is that she is entitled for the benefit of the afore mentioned G.O and for continuance as HSA (Hindi). As noticed herein before, Exhibit P12 was passed by the Government. I am of the view of that the Government are bound to reconsider Exhibit P12 in the light of G.O(P) No.41/10/G.Edn dated 23.03.2010 which made G.O dated 09.01.2008 applicable for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. To enable the Government/the first respondent to make such reconsideration of the revision petition, Exhibit P12 is set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to reconsider and pass WP (C) NO. 26370 of 2010 4 orders on the revision petition filed by the petitioner that resulted in Exhibit P12 order in the light of Government Order dated 20.03.2010 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall also grant the petitioner the consequential benefits arising out of such consideration within one moth from the date of passing of order in terms of the above direction C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc