IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22846 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.S.PRAVEEN, L.G.HINDI TEACHER C.A.HIGH SCHOOL PERUVAMBA PERUVAMBA PO., PALAKKAD RESIDING AT.CHANDALOOR HOUSE, MATTAYI , POYHUNDI PO., (VIA.) NENMARA, PALAKKAD.678 508. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDCUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD. 5. MANAGER, C.A. HIGH SCHOOL, PERUVAMBA, PERUVAMBA PO., PALAKKAD DT. BY G.P. SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P(C) No. 22846 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 5th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P6 order dated 22.05.2008 passed by the Director of Public Instructions. Since the petitioner has got an alternate remedy of filing a revision against Ext. P6 order, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained for the present. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as L.G. Hindi teacher in a retirement vacancy on 31.03.2006 by Ext. P1 order of appointment. The appointment was not approved by the Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer passed Ext. P2 order rejecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner on two grounds, which are stated in Ext.P2 thus: “1. The Management has not settled the 2 claims under rule 51 B Chap. XIV A KER and Rule 9A of Chap. XXIV A KER. 2. The above claims has been challenged in W.P.(C) No. 20399 and W.P.(C) 20445 of 2004 before the Honourable High Court of Kerala and there on in the Judgment dt. 12.10.06 the Honourable High Court of Kerala has also ordered that the Manager shall not make any appointments in the school till a decision is taken by Government. The Government decision not so far received. Therefore the approval of appointment in r/o. Sri Praveen C.S. as LG (Hindi) is rejected.” W.P(C) No. 22846 OF 2008 2 2. Challenging Ext. P2 order, though an appeal was filed by the Manager before the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, approval of appointment of the petitioner was not granted. The Manager filed a Revision Petition before the Director of Public Instruction, who disposed of the Revision as per Ext. P6 order dated 22.05.2008. In Ext. P6, it was held that one Balkees is entitled to be appointed as L.G. Hindi teacher as she has a preferential claim for appointment. 3. It is stated in Ext. P2 order dated 13.12.2006 that there were two Rule 51B claimants and the Manager had not settled those claims. In paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the claims made by those persons under Rule 51 B were not ultimately recognised by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petitions filed by them. However, Balkees claimed that she is entitled to be appointed as L.G. Hindi teacher with effect from 01.04.2006 as she was working as Peon in the school from 2003. It is stated that the Manager promoted Balkees as L.G. Hindi teacher with effect from December, 2007. In the Writ Petition filed by Balkees, this Court directed the Government to dispose of the dispute between Balkees and the petitioner . It is stated in the Writ Petition that after hearing the petitioner and Balkees, the first respondent has reserved the order, but no order has been passed. It is stated that the matter is now pending before the Government in the Revision filed by Balkees. The question whether Balkees is entitled to be promoted is a matter to be decided by the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending disposal of the matter before the Government, the Director of Public Instructions has passed Ext. P6 order, whereby the Educational Officer was directed to terminate the service of the petitioner. Balkees is W.P(C) No. 22846 OF 2008 3 not made a party to the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly since the matter is pending disposal before the first respondent, I am of the view that operation of Ext.P6 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days to facilitate the petitioner to file a revision challenging Ext.P6 order. The petitioner would be entitled to apply for appropriate interim orders before the first respondent. Needless to say, Balkees should also be heard in the matter by the first respondent while disposing any Revision that may be filed by the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk