IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20147 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.SUMA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.VENUGOPALAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (NATURAL SCIENCE) K.T.M.HIGH SCHOOL, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, K.T.M.HIGH SCHOOL, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22797 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20147/2008 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.1579/2007/B1 OF THE DIST.EDL.OFFICER DTD. 07/12/2007. P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.4/2005/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 04/01/2005. P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.12/08/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 09/01/2008. P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1701/07/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 17/04/2007. P5: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.109/98/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 06/04/1998. P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.352/2000/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 25/10/2000. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.RA3/52581/2007/DIP OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 05/10/2007. P8: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2596/08/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 09/06/2008. P9: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.175/99/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 26/07/1999. P10: COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.240/99/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 29/09/1999. P11: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.41/10/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 20/03/2010. P12: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DTD. NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) Nos. 20147 of 2008 & 22797 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Common facts are involved in these writ petitions and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in WPC 20147/2008 entered in service as an Upper Primary School Assistant on 7.12.1994. She was promoted as High School Assistant(Natural Science) with effect from 1.6.1998. The said appointments were approved by the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the order of the Director of Public Instructions the 3rd respondent revised Ext.P1 staff fixation order for the year 2006-07 and consequently, the petitioner was reverted to the post of UPSA. In fact, the basis for such an action was Ext.P3 Government Order dated 9.1.2008. Accordingly, she was ordered to be reverted from the post of HSA(Natural Science). Consequently, the petitioner in WP(C) 22797 of 2009 being the juniormost to the petitioner in the category of UPSA is facing retrenchment from service. 2. Aggrieved by the order of reversion the petitioner in WPC.20147/2008 & 22797/2009 : 2 : WP(C) 20147/08 took up the matter before the second respondent contending that she is entitled to continue as HSA based on the Teacher Student ratio of 1:40. The second respondent considered her entitlement to continue in the post of HSA (Natural Science) in the light of Ext.P2 Government order and dismissed the revision petition as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner has made an unsuccessful attempt in revision before the Government against Ext.P7. Ext.P8 is the order rejecting the revision. W.P(C) 20147/08 has been filed in this said circumstances. As per interim order dated 4.7.2008 the petitioner was permitted to continue as HSA(Natural Science) and the said order was subsequently extended until further orders. But, in the said interim order it was also made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to get only the salary of UPSA subject to the result of the writ petition. Therefore, the fate of WPC 22797/2009 depends on the final outcome in WPC 20147/2008. 3. As already noticed, the petitioner in WPC 20147/2008 was promoted to the post of HSA(Natural Science). Later, she was ordered to be reverted from the said post pursuant to the WPC.20147/2008 & 22797/2009 : 3 : revision of Ext.P1 Staff Fixation Order. The staff fixation was effected by applying teacher student ratio as 1:45. Later the said ratio was modified. However, the benefit of the same was not made applicable to those persons faced with reversion to the lower post. It was made applicable only to the persons facing retrenchment. Subsequently, Government issued another order whereby the modified teacher student ratio of 1:40 was made applicable even in the case of teachers who were facing reversion to the lower post. However, it was made applicable only with effect from 2007-08 onwards as per Ext.P3. Off late, the said Government Order was made applicable from 2004-05 and 2006-07 as per Ext.P11 order dated 20.3.2010. In the wake of said developments it is submitted that Ext.P8 order in WPC 20147/2008 requires a reconsideration. A perusal of Ext.P8 thereunder would reveal that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected relying on Ext.P2 Government Order. Obviously, the said Government Order was now, made applicable even in the case of teachers facing reversion to the lower post from 2004-05. In such circumstances, I am inclined to accept the contention WPC.20147/2008 & 22797/2009 : 4 : raised by the petitioner that Ext.P8 order passed by the Government in the revision petition, requires reconsideration. To enable the Government to re-consider the revision petition that led to the issuance of Ext.P8 in WPC 20147/2008 the same is set aside. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to re-consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner that led to the issuance of Ext.P8 order in the light of Ext.P11 Government Order viz., G.O(P) No.41/10/G.Edn. dated 20.3.2010. Necessarily the entitlement of the petitioner in WP(C) 22797/2009 has to be decided based on the outcome of the decision taken on the aforesaid revision petition filed by the petitioner in WPC 20147/2008. It is made clear that in case the claim of the petitioner in WPC 20147/2008 is ultimately allowed, the respondent shall re-consider the entitlement of the petitioner in WPC 22797/2009. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge