IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2157 of 2009 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25888/2009 Dated 15/09/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- K.M.ANITHA, H.S.A. S.B.H.S.KURUMPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. K.A.HAMZA, W/O.RAVEEDRAN, HEADMISTRESS, S.B.H.S., KURUMPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER, SWAMI SHODHANANDA HIGH SCHOOL, KURUPILAVU,THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI. M. SASINDRAN. R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2157 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 1st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The fifth respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. There is a dispute regarding seniority between the appellant and the first respondent, which would have some bearing on their claim for promotion as Headmaster. It is unnecessary to refer to all the details of the case. The present position is that, the first respondent is continuing as Headmistress of the School, but the claim of the appellant has been upheld by the District Educational Officer by Ext.P13 proceedings dated 28.8.2009. The first respondent feeling aggrieved by the said decision preferred Ext.P14 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. He also preferred Ext.P14(a) stay application before the said officer. The appeal and the stay application were filed on 10.9.2009. Within four days, the first respondent approached this Court on 14.9.2009 by filing the writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.A. No.2157 of 2009 - 2 - “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P14 and P14(a) without delay. ii. to command the respondents 1, 2 and 4 not to implement the Ext.P13 order before deciding the Ext.P14 statutory appeal. iii. to set aside Ext.P13 by issuing appropriate writ or order. iv. to declare that the order Ext.P13 is not liable to be implemented before a decision on the statutory appeal filed against the same. v. to command the 2nd respondent to issue appropriate direction for keeping in abeyance Ext.P13 order till the disposal of Ext.P14 appeal.” The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the Deputy Director to consider and pass orders on Ext.P14 appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was also ordered that status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of Ext.P14. Feeling aggrieved by the said directions of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed by the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition. W.A. No.2157 of 2009 - 3 - 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We notice that Ext.P14 has been filed only on 10.9.2009 and this Court was moved on 14.9.2009 seeking, inter alia, a direction for disposal of Ext.P14. The learned Single Judge allowed the said prayer. This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to an authority if it has failed to discharge its duty and an applicant who has a right to seek performance of that duty, approaches this court. In the present case, the Deputy Director cannot be said to have failed to discharge his duty of disposing Ext.P14 dated 10.9.2009 on 14.9.2009. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to dispose of Ext.P14 as per the judgment under appeal is unsustainable. We vacate the same. 3. But, we notice that Ext.P14(a) stay application is pending before the Deputy Director. He should have immediately on receipt of the same considered and passed orders on it. If no orders are passed on it so far, the third W.A. No.2157 of 2009 - 4 - respondent Deputy Director, shall pass orders on Ext.P14(a), on production of a copy of this judgment. When the appellate authority is seized of the stay petition, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to grant an order of maintaining status quo, as was done in this case. It is for the said authority to advert to the facts of the case and take a decision on the said application. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge to maintain status quo is vacated. If heavens will fall in the meantime, this Court may consider granting stay till the stay application is considered by the appellate authority. But, in this case, we notice that in obedience to Ext.P13, the Manager has to issue fresh proceedings. That will take its own time. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity for this Court to grant any interim relief till the disposal of the stay application. If such an order is passed by this Court, it is sure to fetter the authority considering the stay application and appeal and may give a wrong message to the said authority. So, the prayer of the petitioner to order status quo till the disposal of the stay petition cannot be granted. Therefore, W.A. No.2157 of 2009 - 5 - subject to the direction to the Deputy Director to dispose of Ext.P14(a), the writ appeal is allowed and the judgment under appeal is reversed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)