IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 7311 of 2008(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.LAKSHMAN REENA, H.S.A (NATURAL SCIENCE), KAMBIL MOPILA HIGH SCHOOL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.), SRI.ANIL K.NAIR, SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN, SRI.PRAMJI PAUL VAZHAPPILLY. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 3. THE MANAGER, KAMBIL MOPILA HIGH SCHOOL, KANNUR. 4. SMT. G.SUDHARMA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KAMBIL MOPILA HIGH SCHOOL, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMOOD, R4 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7311/2008-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D. DIS-RA (3)/99765/99/DPI DTD. 30/03/2000 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D. DIS. B.3740/2000 DTD. 18/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O. (RT).NO.2930/GENL. EDN. DTD. 27/06/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-5083/2006 DTD. 13/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 06/06/1989. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/08/1994. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7311/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P4, the orders issued by the Ist and 2nd respondents. 2. Petitioner and one Smt. K.V. Latha were working as HSA (Natural Science) and the 4th respondent, as HSA (Social Science). Following the staff fixation order for the year 1997-98 and the resultant reduction of HSA posts, they were ordered to be reverted. It would appear that DPI passed Ext.P1 order at the instance of the Manager and the petitioner, sanctioning two posts applying the ratio 1:40, resulting in the continuance of the petitioner and Smt. K.V. Latha as HSA. This order stated to have been implemented by Ext.P2 order of the DEO. WP(c).No.7311/2008 2 3. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent made a complaint to the first respondent and though that was considered and rejected, pursuant to the judgment of this court in O.P.No.8311/2001 filed by the 4th respondent, she filed yet another representation before the Government to reconsider the matter. It would appear that, on that representation, Government passed Ext.P3 order, directing promotion of the 4th respondent as HSA(Social Studies) reverting Smt. K.V. Latha from 15.7.1998. That order was sought to be implemented by the second respondent by issuing Ext.P4. In that order the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner being the junior most HSA(Natural Science) is liable to be reverted and not Smt. K.V. Latha. It was there upon that the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 and obtained an order of stay. Resultant position is that the petitioner continues as HSA(Natural Science) and the 4th respondent is continuing as UPSA, consequent on the reversion following Ext.P1 order. WP(c).No.7311/2008 3 4. Though several contentions are raised by both parties, parties are unanimous that Ext.P3 order was passed by the Government without hearing the petitioner. Though in Ext.P3, petitioner is not ordered to be reverted, still fact remains that when the same was implemented by the DEO, it was the petitioner who was ordered to be reverted. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is unaffected by Ext.P3 order. Therefore, since the petitioner has been prejudicially affected by Ext.P3, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P3 and direct that the first respondent shall hear the petitioner, K.V. Latha, 4th respondent and the Manager and any other affected parties and thereafter pass fresh orders in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. i. Exts.P3 and P4 will stand quashed on the sole ground that the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner. The first respondent shall reconsider the matter WP(c).No.7311/2008 4 afresh with notice to the petitioner, K.V. Latha, 4th respondent, Manager and any other affected parties and pass fresh orders. ii. It is directed that the first respondent shall furnish a copy of the representation, on which Ext.P3 order was passed, to enable the petitioner to file her objections there to and only thereafter the matter shall be reconsidered and disposed of. iii. Until the matter is disposed of as above, the interim order dated 3.3.2008, will remain in force. iv. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.7311/2008 5