IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11338 of 2008(Y) PETITIONER: 1. S.ANURAGH, PEON, KARUNA U.P.SCHOOL, THENNILAPURAM, (VIA) ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. C.K.RAJESWARI, SANSKRIT TEACHER (PART TIME) KARUNA U.P.SCHOOL, THENNILAPURAM, (VIA) ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, KARUNA U.P.SCHOOL, THENNILAPURAM, (VIA) ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 11338 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd May, 2008 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a Peon working in Karuna U.P.School, Thennilapuram. He was appointed in the leave vacancy for a period from 2.4.2003 to 30.7.2003 and again in another leave vacancy from 1.8.2003 to 28.11.2003. It is stated that both the appointments were approved. In another leave vacancy for the period from 12.3.2007 to 10.7.2007, the first petitioner was again appointed as Peon. The first petitioner was thereafter permanently appointed as Peon with effect from 11.7.2007. The appointment of the first petitioner in the leave vacancy for the period from 12.3.2007 to 10.7.2007 and his permanent appointment from 11.7.2007 onwards were not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Exts.P2 and P3 orders. Though the first petitioner filed appeals before the District Educational Officer, they were rejected as per Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders. 2. The second petitioner was appointed in the same School as part time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 10.1.2007. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the request for approval of the appointment of the second petitioner as per Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order was confirmed in appeal by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P6 order. W.P.(C) NO.11338 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 3. The appointment of petitioners was not approved on the ground that Sri.S.Prakash, the Manager, was not competent to appoint the petitioners. It is stated in the orders that Sri.S.Prakash was working as LPSA on daily wages in another school for the period from 11.10.2006 to 22.12.2006 and as such he has violated Rule 8(1) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. It is also stated that Sri.S.Prakash is disqualified from being the Manager of the School. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that Sri.S.Prakash was acting as the Manager of the School at the relevant time and in view of de facto doctrine, appointment of the petitioners is liable to be approved. Challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P10 Revision and the second petitioner has filed Ext.P11 Revision before the Government, the third respondent. Exts.P10 and P11 Revisions are pending disposal. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “a) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P2, P3, P4, P4(a), P5 and P6; b) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the 1st petitioner as Peon with effect from 12.3.2007 onwards and of the 2nd petitioner as Part-time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 10.1.2007 onwards at Karuna U.P.School, Thennilapuram, Palakkad District; W.P.(C) NO.11338 OF 2008 :: 3 :: c) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibits P10 and P11 Revisions submitted by the petitioners; d) to grant such other and further relief as this Honourable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6. In view of the fact that Exts.P10 and P11 Revisions are pending before the Government, reliefs (a) and (b) cannot be granted. However, the petitioners are entitled to get relief (c). Since the fourth respondent, Manager, does not oppose the prayer of the petitioners, I do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: The third respondent Government will dispose of Exts.P10 and P11 Revisions filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months, after affording them an opportunity of being heard. The third respondent shall also afford an opportunity of being heard to the fourth respondent and also to Sri.S.Prakash, who was allegedly acting as the Manager of the School. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/