IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 7009 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR.A.R., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN NAIR, NARAYANA VILASAM, VENKODE P.O., VATTAPPARA, TRIVANDRUM, NOW WORKING AS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR), M.V.H.S.S THUNDATHIL, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.PAULSON THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER, S.V.H.S.S, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7009/2008 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY STAFF FIXATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 13/12/2002. P4: COPY OF LIST OF STUDENTS APPEARED FOR PLUS TWO PUBLIC EXAM OF 2002 FOR SCIENCE BATCH. P4(A): COPY OF LIST OF STUDENTS APPEARED FOR PLUS TWO PUBLIC EXAM OF 2002 FOR COMMERCE BATCH. P4(B): COPY OF LIST OF STUDENTS APPEARED FOR PLUS TWO PUBLIC EXAM OF 2002 FOR HUMANITIES BATCH. P5: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.162/91 DTD. 1/10/1991. P6: COPY OF G.O.(RT) 1341/98 DTD.28/03/1998. P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER DTD. 7/10/2006. P8: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DTD. 25/09/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.7009/2008-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is working as H.S.S.T (Junior) in M.V.H.S.S. Thundathil, Thiruvananthapuram. He was appointed on 07/08/2000. But the approval was granted only with effect from 15/11/2001 as per Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the staff fixation order issued by the Director in respect of the academic years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. 2. The petitioner's case is that as per the students' strength available for the year 2000-2001 one post of H.S.S.T Full Time and another post of H.S.S.T Junior are to be sanctioned. But the second respondent sanctioned only the H.S.S.T post and the H.S.S.T (Junior) post was sanctioned only in the year 2001-2002. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that there were 136 students studying Hindi in Std.XI in the year 2000-2001 and there were 90 students studying in Std.XII in the same year. But the Director has taken into account only 114 students for Std.XI and 90 for Std.XII in Ext.P3 staff fixation order. The petitioner is relying upon Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b), true copies of the list of students who appeared for the Science, Commerce and Humanities batches in the Higher W.P.(C). No.7009/2008 -:2:- Secondary Examination 2002. It is contended that the same will prove that 136 is the roll strength of students. 3. Presently, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the Government whereby the appeal filed by the Manager was dismissed without stating any reasons. It is a one line order wherein it is stated that “the Government have examined the matter in the appeal petition dated 01/01/2003 in detail and found no grounds to consider the same.” It is the contention raised by the petitioner that Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) and other relevant materials have not been taken into consideration while passing Ext.P8 order. 4. The Government was dealing with an appeal filed by the Manager, and therefore, it was incumbent on the Government to state reasons for the rejection of the appeal. The powers conferred upon an appellate authority are well known. Apart from that the authority is duty bound to pass a speaking order when the statutory remedy is availed of by the aggrieved party. Herein, the petitioner is affected by Ext.P8 order as he is seeking approval from an earlier date. Ext.P8 order is hence quashed since it is a non speaking order. 5. There will be a direction to the Government to consider the matter afresh, after hearing the petitioner and the Manager, and appropriate W.P.(C). No.7009/2008 -:3:- orders shall be passed on merits, after considering Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) also, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms