IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30673 of 2007(B) PETITIONER: K.A.HANZA, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, HEADMISTRESS S.B.H.S.KURUMPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, SWAMI BHODHANANDA HIGH SCHOOL, KURUPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. K.M.ANITHA, H.S.A, S.B.H.S. KURUMPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 6.3.1969 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.1991 IN O.P.NO.7535 OF 1991. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.10.1991. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.1.1992 OF THE HEADMASTER-IN-CHARGE INTIMATING THE JOINING OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ALONG WITH THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DNA THE OTHER REQUISITE DETAILS. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 10.9.2007. EXT.P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 1.1.2007 FORWARDED BY THE MANAGER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.3.1993. EXT.R5(b) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.7.1994. EXT.R5(c) TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMEN T ORDER DATED 9.7.1991. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 30673 OF 2007 B -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th July, 2008 JUDGMENT The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order to quash Ext.P8 in so far as it declares that the 5th respondent as senior to the petitioner in the cadre of H.S.A. ii) to command the first respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, made as per Ext.P5. iii) to declare that the petitioner is senior to the 5th respondent in the cadre of H.S.A., and thus entitled to be promoted as H.S.A as ordered in Ext.P5. iv) to declare that the date of appointment of the 5th respondent shown in Ext.P7(a) is incorrect and that the date could only be the date of arising of the vacancy, after the vacancies referred to in Ext.P3. v) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Headmistress by the Manager. The fifth respondent contended that she is senior to the petitioner and that she is the most eligible candidate to be appointed as the Headmistress. The fifth respondent approached the District Educational Officer before whom the proposal to approve the appointment of the petitioner was W.P.(C) NO.30673 OF 2007 B :: 2 :: pending. The District Educational Officer passed Ext.P6 order dated 22.7.2007, directing the Manager to submit the seniority list as on 1.1.2007. The Manager complied with the order and submitted Ext.P7 seniority list. In Ext.P7 seniority list, the fifth respondent is shown as junior to the petitioner. The fifth respondent filed objections to the list. The District Educational Officer accepted the objections raised by the fifth respondent and passed Ext.P8 order dated 22.9.2007, holding that the fifth respondent is senior to the petitioner. The Manager was directed to submit a correct seniority list after getting the signature of all the teachers concerned. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the District Educational Officer did not hear the petitioner while passing Ext.P8 order. There is no case for any of the respondents that the petitioner was heard by the District Educational Officer while passing Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order is, therefore, liable to be set aside on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P8 order is quashed. The District Educational Officer shall consider the case afresh and pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, the Manager and any other affected party, W.P.(C) NO.30673 OF 2007 B :: 3 :: as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within two months. The petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and any other person who is interested would be entitled to produce such other materials and documents in support of their respective contentions. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/