IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12917 of 2008(K) PETITIONER: KALPANA V.V. AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.GANGADHARAN, JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER (PART TIME), KORJAN U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.KAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERI P.O. PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, KORJAN U.P.SCHOOL, KAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED: 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2/6/2008 IN I.A.NO.6525/2008 GOVERNMENT SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12917 OF 2008 K -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Part-time Junior Language Teacher in Korjan U.P.School, against a retirement vacancy of Smt.M.Lalitha, with effect from 16.6.2005. As per Ext.P1 order, the Assistant Educational Officer did not approve the appointment of the petitioner and returned the papers. Thereafter, the proposal was again made. Again the Assistant Educational Officer refused to entertain the same as per Ext.P2 order. It is stated that again the Manager submitted proposal along with the documents before the Assistant Educational Officer requesting for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that no action was taken by the Assistant Educational Officer. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Assistant Educational Officer, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 Revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules before the Government. Ext.P3 is stated to be pending. 2. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner acquired the required qualification on 3.8.2007 and, therefore, her appointment is to be approved at least from 3.8.2007. The petitioner has produced Ext.P5 Staff Fixation Order to show that a Full-time post would be available in the School. W.P.(C) NO.12917 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 11.4.2008, the following order was passed: “Learned Govt. Pleader points out that the remedy of the petitioner has in filing an appeal before the immediate higher authority and not filing revision before the Government straight away. In the above circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to take recourse to that remedy.” 4. After the filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 Revision dated 31.3.2008, to the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting for taking appropriate action for the approval of appointment of the petitioner. Though Ext.P7 is dated 31.3.2008, apparently it was sent to the Director of Public Instructions after filing the Writ Petition. Ext.P7(a) acknowledgment shows that the Director of Public Instructions received the Revision on 26.4.2008. Ext.P7 is pending disposal before the Director of Public Instructions. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 and P2 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner and pay her due salary; W.P.(C) NO.12917 OF 2008 :: 3 :: iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P3 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time frame; iv) Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 6. In view of the pendency of Ext.P7 Revision before the Director of Public Instructions, it is not proper to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the Writ Petition. However, there will be a direction to the Director of Public Instructions to dispose of Ext.P7 Revision filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/