IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2807 of 2009(H) PETITIONER: THE MANAGER, K.S.B SCHOOL, KARIPPODE, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 2807 OF 2009 H ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of K.S.B.School, Karippode in Palakkad District. It is stated that two regular vacancies arose in the post of UPSA and Full Time Urdu Teacher in the School on 1.4.2008 and 31.5.2008 respectively. The petitioner appointed Smt.Sona C.S. as UPSA, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment, and Smt.Habeeba.T. as Full Time Urdu Teacher, as per Ext.P1(a) order of appointment. The proposals for approval of appointments of the aforesaid teachers were rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders dated 17.9.2008. One of the reasons for rejection is that the validity of the staff fixation order 2008-2009 depends on the judgment in W.P.(C) No,15379 of 2008. Other technical objections were also raised. Challenging Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 and P5(a) appeals before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals are pending consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason stated for rejection of the proposals for approval of the appointments that the staff fixation order 2008-2009 depends on the judgment in W.P.(C) W.P.(C) NO.2807 OF 2009 :: 2 :: No.15379 of 2008 is absolutely unsustainable. W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008 was filed by the Managers of several schools including the petitioner challenging the circulars issued by the Government and the circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction, directing demolition of the pre KER buildings. The Writ Petition, namely, W.P.(C) NO.15379 of 2008, was admitted and Ext.P2 interim order was granted, which was later extended until further orders, as per Ext.P3 order. The pendency of W.P. (C) No.15379 of 2008 should not be a ground for rejection of the proposals for approval of the appointments. I am of the view that the said reason mentioned in Exts.P4 and P4(a) is improper. Still there are other reasons for rejection in Exts.P4 and P4(a), which are to be considered in Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals. 3. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order at Ext.P4 and P4(a) of the 3rd respondent to the extent it refuses approval to appointments made by the Manager against regular vacancies; (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment made as per Ext.P1 and P1(a); (iii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal at Ext.P5 and P5 (a) and pass orders within a period of 7 days; W.P.(C) NO.2807 OF 2009 :: 3 :: (iv) Declare that the appointment made against regular vacancies at Ext.P1 and P1(a) are entitled to be approved by the 3rd respondent as the Circulars/orders seeking to demolish the pre KER school buildings are stood stayed by this Hon'ble Court; (v) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner confines his relief to relief (iii). Learned Government Pleader submits that Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals would be disposed of by the District Educational Officer without delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above: a) The District Educational Officer shall consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) NO.2807 OF 2009 :: 4 :: b) The District Educational Officer need not afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as the petitioner waives such right of hearing. c) The District Educational Officer shall dispose of Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals taking into account the observations made above with respect to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008. d) It is made clear, accepting the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, that any decision on Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals as well as the question of revising the staff fixation order 2008-2009 shall be subject to the decision in W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008. e) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer without delay. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/