IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2503 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36977/2008 Dated 17/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- K.P.JYOTHI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. RAJAGOPALAN HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE)PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR,P.O.KANNUR. 4. SMT. P.P.LEELA,MANAGER, PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL (SOCIETY) VIDHYA,PANNENPARA ROAD, PALLIKUNNU 670 004.KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE HEADMASTER,PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL,P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.No.2503 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. On 8-6-2001, the petitioner was appointed as an HSA (Physical Science) in the school of which the fifth respondent is the Headmaster. That appointment order was issued by the then Manager. Later, the fourth respondent came to be appointed as Manager and the statutory authorities issued an order dated 31-7-2008 approving such appointment with effect from 23-4-2006, that is, a date anterior to the appointment of the petitioner. The DEO, in the course of consideration of the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioner as HSA, issued WA2503/08 -: 2 :- Ext.P6 letter on 30-9-2008 requiring the Manager/Headmaster to forward certain documents. When the question of approval of the petitioner's appointment, thus, was pending consideration before the DEO, the statutory authority; the fourth respondent whose managership is with a retrospective approval, issued Ext.P7 notice and Ext.P9 order taking the view that the petitioner's re-appointment as per Ext.P2 as a Rule 51A claimant would not be made and she cannot be permitted to continue as an unapproved teacher. That action by the fourth respondent as a manager, while the issue was gaining the attention of the DEO, essentially, relates in forking the proceedings in which ext.P6 has been generated. We also note that Ext.P2 was issued even before the DEO, Kannur approved the appointment of the fourth respondent as per order dated 31-7-2008. When Ext.P9 decision of the manager was challenged, the learned single Judge has issued WA2503/08 -: 3 :- the impugned judgment preserving the rights of the petitioner to pursue her statutory remedies and also seek interlocutory orders from such statutory authorities. The availability of alternate efficacious remedy is not a matter in dispute. Obviously, therefore, the impugned judgment, being a discretionary one, we find no ground to interfere with that judgment in writ appeal in exercise of power under Section 5 of the High Court Act. But, it needs to be noticed that the petitioner was initially appointed on 8-6-2001 as against a leave vacancy and such appointment was approved. Going by the impugned Ext.P9, the petitioner's status as an eligible Rule 51A claimant is also not much in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner having discharged duties and responsibilities with continuity at least from the date of Ext.P2, i.e., 13-6-2008, following her initial approved appointment on the basis of Ext.P1, though only for 135 days, we deem it appropriate that status-quo as on today is maintained till the DEO hears the petitioner WA2503/08 -: 4 :- and respondents 4 and 5. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ appeal directing that the aforesaid status shall be obtained and the DEO shall decide as to the course of action to be adopted, particular regard being had to the various grounds raised by the petitioner in Grounds C, D and E of the memorandum of writ appeal. We also clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits and the DEO will decide the matter untrammelled by anything stated in this judgment or in the judgment impugned in this writ appeal. Let the DEO take a final decision as afore-directed within two months. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,Judge. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. Sha/261208