IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4079 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GIRIJA R, W/O. K.S. MANOJKUMAR, KALATHIL HOUSE, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ MR.GOKUL.R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANAN THAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUZHALMANNAM. 6. THE MANAGER, ABUP SCHOOL, KANNADI, P.O. KANNADI, PALAKKAD DIST. 7. SOUMYA V, D/O. VELUKUTTY C.A., NELLIYAMPADAM, POLPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.AJ.VARGHESE R7 BY ADV. MR.U.BALAGANGADHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.4079 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner had formerly worked as Hindi Teacher in A.B.U.P. School managed by the sixth respondent during the period from 2.7.2003 to 17.9.2003. A vacancy of Sanskrit Teacher arose in the sixth respondent's school on 31.3.2008. The petitioner who possesses the qualifications for appointment as Sanskrit Teacher claimed appointment in the said vacancy as a Rule 51A claimant. The sixth respondent however appointed the seventh respondent as Sanskrit Teacher. That appointment was not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, Kuzhalmannamm who by Ext.P2 order dated 14.9.2008 directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner as Sanskrit teacher. The Manager filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer challenging Ext.P2 and the seventh respondent filed a revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction challenging Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner had in the meanwhile filed W.P.(C) No.16885 of 2008 in this Court seeking implementation of Ext.P2. By Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 24.11.2008 this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the District Educational Officer to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the Manager after hearing all the parties. This WP(C) 4079/09 -: 2 :- Court further directed that since the appellate authority has been directed to consider the appeal, the revisional authority, namely, the Director of Public Instruction need not consider the revision petition filed by the seventh respondent. 3. As directed by this Court, the District Educational Officer heard the parties and passed Ext.P4 order dated 12.1.2009 upholding the appointment of the seventh respondent. The petitioner has aggrieved thereby filed Ext.P5 revision petition before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 and prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to appoint her as Full-time Sanskrit Teacher in the vacancy that arose on 31.3.2008 in the place of the seventh respondent. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submits that as the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy available to her, this Court cannot at this stage entertain this Writ Petition and adjudicate upon the disputes involved in the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner has already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Government and challenged Ext.P4 order passed by the District Educational Officer by filing Ext.P5 revision petition, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should pursue the said remedy instead of WP(C) 4079/09 -: 3 :- seeking the intervention of this Court at this stage to pronounce on the validity of Ext.P4. I accordingly dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Secretary to Government, General Education Department to pass final orders on Ext.P5 revision petition after notice to and affording the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 an opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and that it will be open to the Secretary to Government to decide the issue in accordance with law. It is also clarified that in the meanwhile if the seventh respondent's appointment is approved, it will be subject to the order passed by the Government on Ext.P5. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 26/2