IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29364 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED RIYAS A.K, S/O.LATE ABDU REHIMAN A.K, ATHIKOTTU HOUSE IYYAD PO, UNNIKULAM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM -695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TRIVANDRUM -695 001 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MELADI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 522. 4. THE MANAGER IRINGATH UP SCHOOL, PO IRINGATH, MELADI 673 523 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. C.T.SAJITHA C/O. HEADMASTER, IRINGATH UP SCHOOL PO IRINGATH , MELADY 673 523,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29364 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The father of the petitioner, while working as Urdu Teacher in Iringath U.P. School, Meladi, Kozhikode District, died on 13.10.1995. It is stated that the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment under the dying in harness scheme. The Manager did not respond. It is stated that a vacancy of UPSA arose in the school during 2008- 2009. According to the petitioner, instead of appointing the petitioner, the Manager appointed the fifth respondent. The petitioner submitted objections before the Assistant Educational Officer against the appointment of the fifth respondent overlooking the claim of the petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. The Assistant Educational Officer conducted an enquiry and passed Exhibit P2 order dated 20.9.2008 directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. The petitioner states that he came to WPC No.29364/2010 2 know that though the Manager filed an appeal against Exhibit P2 order, that appeal was dismissed by the District Educational Officer on 27.1.2009. No notice was issued to the petitioner in that proceeding. The petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Director of Education on 1.7.2009. The Deputy Director of Education passed Exhibit P3 order dated 22.9.2009 directing the Manager to comply with Exhibit P2 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and the order passed by the District Educational Officer on appeal. It is also stated in Exhibit P3 that in case the Manager disobeys the direction, appropriate action would be taken against him. In spite of all these orders, the Manager did not comply with the direction, submits the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was making enquiries as to why he was not appointed. He came to know that Exhibit P4 order dated 18.1.2010 was passed by the Director of Public Instruction stating that the Manager has filed a review petition before the Government against the rejection of approval of appointment of the teacher appointed by the Manager and that review petition is pending before the Government. Exhibit P4 order states that till the matter is decided by the Government, WPC No.29364/2010 3 the Assistant Educational Officer shall not take any further steps in the matter pursuant to Exhibit P2 order. From Exhibit P6 information received under the Right to Information Act, it is seen that the review petition filed by the Manager before the Government was forwarded and a report was called for from the Director of Public Instruction as per No.40629/L1/2009/G.Edn. dated 14.7.2009. The petitioner is not in possession of any review or revision petition filed by the Manager and which is stated to be pending before the Government. 2. Though notice was issued in the Writ Petition to the Manager and the fifth respondent (the teacher appointed by the Manager), there is no appearance for them. 3. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner is to quash Exhibit P4 issued by the Director of Public Instruction and also to issue a writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner in compliance with the orders passed by the educational authorities. I thought of directing the Government to dispose of the review/revision petition filed by the Manager within a specified period, so that a quietus could be achieved in respect of the matter. But respondents 4 and 5 did not think it fit to appear WPC No.29364/2010 4 and furnish the necessary information. The petitioner is not served with any notice in respect of the review or revision petition filed by the Manager. It is clear from Exhibit P4 that the Director of Public Instruction had disposed of the matter pending before him. Exhibit P4 also makes it clear that the matter is now pending before the Government. It was not necessary for the Director of Public Instruction to pass Exhibit P4 order, keeping in abeyance the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer directing the Manager to appoint the petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. If a review or revision is pending before the Government, the Manager could approach the Government to pass an interim order. There is no indication that the Government passed any interim order. Therefore, there was no justification for the Director of Public Instruction to keep in abeyance the proceedings which have become final. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and Exhibit P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to implement Exhibit P2 order and a further direction to respondents 1, 2 and 3 to see that the Manager properly WPC No.29364/2010 5 implements Exhibit P2 order. It is not necessary to consider the other reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition at present. The Manager shall comply with Exhibit P2 order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl