IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 460 of 2009(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.MATHEW S/O.V.O.PHILIP, AGED 60 YEARS MANAGER, ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, NIRANAM -689621 PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. 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 TIRUVALLA. 4. SMT.JOLLY VARGHESE, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, NIRANAM, PATHANAMTHITTA-689621. 5. SMT.SUSAN K.MATHEW, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, NIRANAM PATHANAMTHITTA - 689621. ADV. SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.460/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1502/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21821/2008-W EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.57253/A3/07/G1.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.460 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of St.Mary's High School, Niranam. It is stated that as directed by the Government, the petitioner promoted Smt.V.A.Benu Iype, Upper Primary School Assistant, as High School Assistant (Physical Science) with effect from 20.6.2007. In the resultant vacancy of U.P.S.A., the petitioner appointed Smt.Jolly Varghese (fourth respondent). It is stated that fourth respondent is continuing in service. The approval of appointment of the fourth respondent as U.P.S.A. was not granted by the District Educational Officer. Though an appeal was filed by the petitioner against that order, the Director of Public Instruction dismissed the appeal. Meanwhile, the District Educational Officer issued staff fixation order for 2007- 2008. The petitioner challenged the staff fixation order in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction disposed of the appeal against rejection of approval of the appointment of the fourth respondent as well as the appeal filed by the petitioner against the staff fixation order, by orders dated 20.5.2008 and 24.5.2008. Those orders were WPC No.460 /2009 2 challenged in a composite Revision Petition dated 20.6.2008 filed by the petitioner, before the Government. As per Ext.P2 judgment dated 21st July 2008, the Government was directed to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner dated 20.6.2008, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. The petitioner alleges that when the revision filed by the petitioner was taken up for hearing, the fifth respondent produced a Government letter dated 3.3.2008 (Ext.P3) wherein a direction was issued by the Government to the Deputy Director of Education to issue necessary instructions to retain the fifth respondent as U.P.S.A. in the school in the resultant vacancy on account of the promotion of Benu Iype as H.S.A.. The grievance of the petitioner is that before passing Ext.P3 order, he was not heard and no notice was issued to him. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order dated 3.3.2008, passed by the Government, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 Review Petition dated 19th December 2008. The petitioner submits that unless and until Ext.P4 is disposed of, any decision taken by the Government in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner would be meaningless. WPC No.460 /2009 3 3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are the following: “(a) Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the third respondent to approve the appointment of the fourth respondent as Upper Primary School Assistant, granting protection to the fifth respondent as High School Assistant in the light of Ext.P1. (c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit and before passing orders in compliance with Ext.P2 judgment. (d) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P4 will be disposed of at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: WPC No.460 /2009 4 (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4 Review Petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5. (ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. As no final orders are passed by the first respondent in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner on 20.6.2008, it is only just and reasonable that the first respondent take steps for hearing Ext.P4 Review Petition along with the Revision Petition dated 20.6.2008 filed by the petitioner which was directed to be disposed of by the first respondent as per Ext.P2 judgment. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl