IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.1508 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.649/2008 DATED 25/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ---------------------- JAYASREE K., W/O.SANKARAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, MAPPILA L.P.SCHOOL, CHERANDATHUR P.O., THIRUVALLOOR (VIA), VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMNET, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. 3. THE MANAGER, MAPPILA L.P.SCHOOL, CHERANDATHUR P.O., THIRUVALLOOR (VIA), VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1508 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school under the management of respondent No.3 with effect from June 15, 1992. But, her appointment was approved only with effect from June 5, 1995, as could be seen from Exhibit P1. The said order of approval was passed by the Assistant Educational Officer in terms of Ext.P3 order issued by the Government on February 15, 1997. In the said order, Government had clarified that those teachers who had acquired TCH qualification from Karnataka and joined service in various schools in Kerala during 1995-96 and were subsequently thrown out from service, would be entitled to regularisation. 2. It is the admitted position that the appellant did not challenge Ext.P1 order of approval at any point of time till April 4, 2007, when she is stated to have submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the Government. The said representation was considered by the Government and Exhibit P7 order was passed, rejecting the claim made by the appellant for approval from the date of appointment itself. Exhibit P7 order was impugned by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned Judge noticed that the appellant had not offered any explanation for the long delay in challenging Exhibit P1 order. Significantly the appellant had not initially challenged Exhibit P1 order in the writ petition, but it was done only at the subsequent stage. According to the appellant, she had filed Exhibit P8 representation in 2000 before the Chief Minister requesting his intervention in the matter. W.A.No.1508 of 2008 - 2 - 4. Admittedly Exhibit P5 representation was submitted by the appellant before the Government only in April, 2007. Yet again it is not in dispute that the appellant did not choose to question the validity of Exhibit P1 order by taking recourse to the statutory remedy available to her under the Kerala Education Rules. She had accepted the benevolence of the Government given under Exhibit P3 without any demur and kept quiet for nearly a decade. It may be true, she had sent a representation or two, but that did not mean that she had questioned the validity of Exhibit P1 order in a manner known to law. Since there was no proper explanation for the delay, the learned Judge took the view that the discretionary relief under Article 226 could not be exercised in favour of the appellant. 5. Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge