IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33235 of 2010(D) PETITIONER: --------------- LISSY MATHEW, W/O.K.J.PAUL, AGED 48 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT(RETRENCHED) ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, PALLIPORT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 1. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682 035. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, DIOCESE OF KOTTAPPURAM, KODUNGALLUR-680 667. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 33235 OF 2010 D ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as UPSA in St.Mary's High School, Palliport. Anticipating reduction of posts in 2010-2011, the Manager ordered termination of the services of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order dated 5.8.2010. Though the petitioner made a request to the Manager to allow her to continue in service even without salary, that request was not acceded. The District Educational Officer issued Ext.P5 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, by which, one post of UPSA and one post of LPSA were reduced, applying the teacher- student ratio of 1:45. Later, the Government issued Ext.P6 order, G.O.(P) No.191/10/G.Edn. dated 22.9.2010, extending the benefit of 1:40 teacher-student ratio. The contention of the petitioner is that if 1:40 teacher-student ratio is applied, there will be no reduction of post and therefore, the petitioner could continue in service. Pointing out these facts, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 20.10.2010 to the District Educational Officer requesting to revise the staff fixation order for 2010-2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that no order has been passed on Ext.P7 representation by the District Educational Officer. W.P.(C) NO.33235 OF 2010 D :: 2 :: 2. Though several reliefs are claimed in the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, it would be sufficient if the District Educational Officer is directed to dispose of Ext.P7 representation expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam (second respondent) to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that no notice need be issued to the petitioner by the District Educational Officer as the petitioner waives her right to be heard in the matter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ The time limit of two months to dispose of Ext.P7 representation, mentioned in the 5th line of the last paragraph of the judgment dated 08/11/2010 is corrected and limited to 31/12/2010, as per order in I.A.No.16654/2010 dated 10/12/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)