IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6648 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROOPA A.K., PEON, EVUP SCHOOL, P.O.KOTENCHERY, PURAMERI VIA., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NADAPURAM. 4. V.K.HARIDASAN, MANAGER, EVUP SCHOOL, P.O.KOTENCHERY, PURAMERI VIA., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. V.K.MEENAKSHY AMMA, VADAKEKARA HOUSE, P.O.KOTENCHERY, PURAMERI VIA., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL . 6. PROMOD KUMAR.K, S/O.KUNJAPPA KURUP 836, KUNIYIL HOUSE, VAIKKILASSERI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.6.2010 IN I.A.NO.7229/2010) BY G.P.SRI.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 TO R3 ADV.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R4 ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R5 DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6648 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2009. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DURING DECEMBER, 2009. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.2.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE HEADMISTRESS. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN DESABMANI DAILY DATED 20.2.2010. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS G3/42234/08/DPI DATED 24.9.2009. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.11.2009. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 7.7.2008. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR FITNESS DATED 21.5.2009. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.2.2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE SCHOOL AS ON 2.6.2008. EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.6278/2009. EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 2.6.2008. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.1.09. EXT.P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.7.09 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16.7.2008. EXT.P17: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.1.09 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P17 IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.6.2010: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P19(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2007. EXT.P19(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.1.2009. WP(C).No. 6648 of 2010(E) 2 EXT.P20: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.1.2009. EXT.P21: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.6.2010 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.1.2005. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL OF TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT ALONG WITH APPLICATION DATED 24.3.2008. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER DATED 28.7.2009. EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.No.254/1972 DATED 27.09.1974. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2006 (1) K.L.J. 45) DATED 24.6.2005. EXT.R4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE MANAGER DATED 26.2.2010. EXT.R4(g): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NADAPURAM DATED 5.3.2010. EXT.R4(h): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PRAMOD KUMAR DATED 8.3.2010. EXT.R4(i): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE HEADMISTRESS DATED 09.3.2010. EXT.R4(j): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-9722/09 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 4.6.2010. // TRUE COPY // TKS C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.6648 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 2nd August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Peon in EVUP School as per Ext.P1 order of appointment from 27.7.2009. As per Ext.P2 order dated 25.11.2009 the second respondent declined to grant approval to the said appointment. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2, the matter was taken up in appeal by the petitioner. Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner was considered and disposed of as per Ext.P21 order dated 21.6.2010. Ext.P21 would reveal that the second respondent declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the management of the school was transferred with retrospective effect from 24.3.2008. In fact, it is prior to the passing of Ext.P21 order that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, inter alia, with a prayer to quash Exts.P2 and P7 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal. I.A.No.9928 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner to bring in an amendment to the writ petition to assail Ext.P21 order. The said application for amendment was allowed on 23.7.2010. In fact, prior to that, on 2.7.2010 this Court directed the second respondent to file an affidavit as to whether Order No.B5-9722/2009 dated 4.6.2010 has WP(C).No.6648/2010 2 been communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was actually issued with Ext.P21 only after the said interim order. Subsequently, the petitioner was also served with a copy of the above order dated 4.6.2010. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.10745 of 2010 for permission to amend the writ petition to challenge the said order dated 4.6.2010. Along with the said I.A. he has produced the said order dated 4.6.2010 as Ext.P22. Strangely, a perusal of Exts.P21 and P22 would reveal that the second respondent has disposed of the appeal dated 18.12.2009 filed by the petitioner viz. Ext.P3 appeal, twice. The said fact is very much evident from the reference made in Exts.P21 and P22. This is a matter which is to be looked into by the Government. But, Exts.P21 and P22 would reveal the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2 was rejected by the second respondent. In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, the petitioner who has filed Ext.P3 appeal may have to file a revision petition against the two orders, i.e. Exts.P21 and P22 though there was only one appeal, viz. Ext.P3. Since the said situation arose not on account of any flaw from the part of the petitioner, that shall not stand in the way of the petitioner, in case he prefers a revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules before the Government. In fact, if he had already passed Ext.P22 order dated WP(C).No.6648/2010 3 4.6.2010 on the appeal dated 18.12.2009 what was the purpose for passing Ext.P21 order dated 21.6.2010 ? In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the Government by filing a revision petition against the order rejecting Ext.P3 appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Necessarily, the petitioner has to challenge Exts.P21 and P22 in the revision petition. In case the petitioner prefers such a revision petition as stipulated above, before the Government, it shall be considered expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents sought for a direction to the petitioner to serve copies of the revision petition on contesting respondents while moving the Government in revision. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of moving the Government in revision copies of the revision petition will be served on the contesting respondents. It is made clear that it will be open to the parties to raise all contentions before the first respondent during the hearing on such revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is also aggrieved by WP(C).No.6648/2010 4 Exts.P14 and P17. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P14 and P17, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge them before the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. Admittedly, the petitioner is still continuing as Peon in the school on the strength of Ext.P1 order of appointment. Therefore, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue as Peon of the said school till Government considers the revision, in case the petitioner files such a revision petition within the time stipulated in this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS