IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30936 of 2010(N) PETITIONER: --------------- C.M.BINDU, W/O. RAJEEV, AGED 34 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (NOT APPROVED) MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702. 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-695001. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY-670101, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670702. 4. SMT. NAMBIAR JAYA RAVEENDRAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (NOT APPROVED) MATTANNUR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670702. R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 30936 OF 2010 N ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the fourth respondent were appointed as High School Assistants (Physical Science) with effect from 18.9.2000 in Mattannur Higher Secondary School, Mattannur. Those appointments were approved. As such, the petitioner and the fourth respondent became claimants under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Subsequently, when vacancies arose in the Upper Primary Section of the School, the petitioner and the fourth respondent were appointed as UPSA with effect from 4.6.2008. Before the question of approval was considered by the District Educational Officer, the petitioner raised objection to the approval of the appointment of the fourth respondent as UPSA on the ground that the fourth respondent did not learn Malayalam language during her primary, secondary or higher secondary education. It is also stated that the fourth respondent did not opt Malayalam as her optional subject while she was undergoing degree course. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent learnt Marathi as optional language. In short, the contention of the W.P.(C) NO.30936 OF 2010 N :: 2 :: petitioner is that the fourth respondent does not have sufficient proficiency in the regional language and therefore, her appointment as UPSA was not liable to be approved. This objection was raised, primarily for the reason, since the fourth respondent is elder to the petitioner and if her appointment is approved, she will become senior to the petitioner. 2. As per Ext.P5 order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the District Educational Officer, Thalassery, the contentions put forward by the petitioner were rejected. In Ext.P5 order it was held thus: “Considering all the facts stated above and Ext.P6 in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2010 the undersigned is pleased to order that Smt.Nambiar Jaya Raveendran is well qualified and has preferential claim over the petitioner for the appointment as U.P.S.A. in Mattannur H.S.S. The representation dated 07/02/09 of the petitioner deserves no merit and hence rejected. Judgment in W.P.(C) No.8841 of 2010 dated 17/03/2010 is thus complied with.” 3. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 Revision dated 31.8.2010 before the Government. Ext.P6 is pending disposal. W.P.(C) NO.30936 OF 2010 N :: 3 :: 4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-5 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as UPSA in the 3rd Respondent School. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P-6 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit. (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, it would be sufficient if relief (iii) is granted, leaving open all the contentions raised by the petitioner. W.P.(C) NO.30936 OF 2010 N :: 4 :: 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: (a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P6 Revision dated 31.8.2010 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. (b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/