IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1006 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.VASANTHAKUMARI, H.S.A.(PHYSICAL SCIENCE), GOVERNMENT V.H.S & B.H.S., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM-691 009. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE MANAGER, GUHANANDAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM-691 584. 4. THE HEADMISTRESS, GUHANANDAPURAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM-691 584. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1006 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner who has been affected by the Staff Fixation Order Ext.P3 issued by the District Educational Officer seeks for a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to dispose of Ext.P4 filed against the order passed by the District Education Officer. Petitioner is a protected High School Assistant in Physical Science of Guhanandapuram Higher Secondary School. Being deployed from there now she is working as HSA(Physical Science) in Government V.H.S and B.H.S Kottarakkara. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1, which is the true copy of the order by which second respondent sanctioned 11 divisions in the Higher Secondary Section and 11 posts of HSA, for the same in the core subjects. According to the petitioner, in the light of the Government Order revising teacher student ratio from 1:45 to 1:40 for the current year, petitioner should have been retained in her parent school. Even Though the District Education Officer revised Ext.P1 order by Ext.P3, the petitioner is still deployed to the Government school. 2. Petitioner relies upon the communication issued by the Headmistress to the Manager as Ext.P6 to retain her in the parent school. The Headmistress has sent Ext.P7 request to the second W.P.(C).No.1006 of 2011 2 respondent also to retain her in the parent school. It is pointed out that in the previous year as per Ext.P8 order by extending the benefit of 1:40 ratio the second respondent retained the petitioner in the parent school. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the District Educational Officer. Since the Manager has already moved the Deputy Director of Education, by Ext.P4 appeal, it is only proper that it is heard by the Deputy Director of Education without delay. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that the new school is far away from the residence of the petitioner and therefore, it will require an expeditious disposal of the appeal. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to take a decision on Ext.P4 after hearing the petitioner and the Manager of the school within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy this judgment before the Deputy Director of Education for compliance. No costs. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. ln