IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36336 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.K.MOHAMMED HAJI, MANAGER, M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. SAJNA ABDUL RAHMAN, HSA (ENGLISH), M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. HIMA VINCENT, U.P.S.A., M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. REEJA C.R., U.P.S.A., M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 5. LIMA K.S., U.P.S.A., M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 6. SUNITHA K., H.S.A.(HINDI), M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 7. BINDU V.C., H.S.A.(NATURAL SCIENCE), M.A.S.M.H.S., VENMANAD, PAVARATTY P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., VIGILANCE (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 36336 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the manager of an aided Higher Secondary School. The other petitioners are teachers appointed by the 1st petitioner in the High School section of the school. by Ext. P5 staff fixation order, the DEO found that there are no vacancies to accommodate respondents 2 to 7. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P5 order and seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext. P5 order, since the same is issued in violation of the provisions of Kerala Education Act and Rules and also in violation of petitioners Fundamental Right under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents to give effect to Ext. P1 Staff Fixation Order, dehors Ext. P5 order; (c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to sanction and disburse the salary due to the petitioners 2 to 7 for the Academic Year 2009- 2010 and continue to disburse the salary so long as they are working in the school; (d) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext. P 6 revision petition without any further delay.” 2. The petitioner now has produced Ext. P9 along with I.A.No. 16318/2009, which is the verification conducted by the Director of Education, Thrissur in respect of the staff fixation. According to the petitioners, in view of Ext. P9, Ext. P5 order is liable to be revised. The petitioners therefore seek a direction to the concerned DEO to reconsider Ext. P5 on the basis of Ext. P9 report of the Deputy Director of Education. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that since Ext. P5 W.P.C. No. 36336/09 -: 2 :- report of surprise inspection is based on the direction of the Government, it is the Government who has to consider the matter and not the DEO as requested for by the petitioners. Although counsel for the petitioners is of the opinion that it is the DEO who has to consider the same, he submits that he would be satisfied if the 1st respondent considers the same. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders regarding the staff fixation in the petitioners' school taking into account Ext. P9. The same can be done considering Ext. P6 revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Government. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P6 revision petition in the light of Ext. P9 verification report of the Deputy Director of Education and consider whether Ext. P5 can be sustained in view of Ext. P9 order. Such consideration and passing of orders shall be within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioners shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing orders. The petitioners shall forward a copy of this writ petition and copy of I.A.No. 16318/2009 to the 1st respondent along with a certified copy of this judgment for compliance. The 1st respondent shall consider all the contentions put forward by the petitioners in the matter. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.