IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28660 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARATHI.S,VILAYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, INCHAKKADU,MYLOM.P.O,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 5. THE MANAGER,K.R.K.P.M.V.H.S.S. KADAMPANADU & V.H.S.S.,MANNADY,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 6. DEEPA GEORGE,H.S.A.(MATHEMATICS), V.H.S.S.MANNADY,KOTTARAKKARA(NOT APPROVED), ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN FOR R6 SMT.G.RANJITA FOR R6 SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R5 SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY FOR R5 BY G.P SRI.T.T.UHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28660 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the daughter of V.N.Ramachandran Nair, who died in harness on 10.5.1994 while working as HSA in VHSS, Mannady, Kottarakkara. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was a minor and a student. The petitioner's sister was also aged only 3 ½ years. The petitioner became major on 31.5.2003 and she says that she is qualified to be appointed as HSA in a vacancy which arose in the school on 1.4.2010. 2. The Manager appointed the 6th respondent on 2.6.2008. The 6th respondent is a Rule 51A claimant. She was working in the school for the period from 8.10.2003 to 11.12.2003. The petitioner has no case that the 6th respondent should not have been appointed, she being a Rule 51A Claimant. The W.P.(C).No.28660 OF 2010 2 grievance of the petitioner is that the Manager has not appointed the petitioner recognizing her claim under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER. Pointing out these aspects, the mother of the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application before the Manager for appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 7.6.2007 before the Manager requesting to appoint the petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “I. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4 th respondent to consider the approval of the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher in the light of GO(P) No.10/10/G.Edn. dated 12.1.2010 notwithstanding Ext.P2, P3 and P4. II. Declare that Ext.P2 to P4 are insignificant in the light of the Govt. order No.GO(P)10/10/G.Edn. Dated 12.1.2010. W.P.(C).No.28660 OF 2010 3 III. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the salary of the petitioner w.e.f.1.11.2009 and credit the salary in the Provident Fund to be opened in term of the G.O. dated 12.1.2010. IV. Issue such other writ order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. And V. Award costs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing relief No.III as the 6th respondent is a Rule 51A claimant. Therefore, the 6th respondent was entitled to be appointed by the Manager. 5. Ext.P6 representation is pending before the Director of Public Instruction. The proper authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner is the District Educational Officer. The petitioner would be entitled to put forward the grievances of not appointing her under the dying- in-harness scheme before the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer could W.P.(C).No.28660 OF 2010 4 even issue direction to the Manager to appoint a Rule 51B Claimant. The District Educational Officer is the authority to approve the appointment of the teacher. If the Manager does not obey the direction issued by the District Educational Officer, appropriate action can be taken. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the claim of the petitioner on the merits in this Writ Petition, since it was not considered by the Educational Officer in the first instance. The petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation before the District Educational Officer, who shall consider such representation and issue appropriate directions to the Manager, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Manager as well. If the petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, appropriate directions can be issued by the Educational Officer and the Manager shall comply with such directions if any. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of W.P.(C).No.28660 OF 2010 5 permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Educational Officer within a period of one month from today. On receipt of such representation, the District Educational Officer shall consider the grievance put forward by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager, shall issue appropriate directions in the matter. If the District Educational Officer comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIVA KER, the District Educational Officer shall issue specific direction to the Manager to appoint the petitioner. The Manager shall comply with the direction issued by the District Educational Officer without fail. Sd/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. The reliefs quoted in paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 30/11/2010 in WP(C) 28660 of 2010 are substituted as follows, as per order dated 08/12/2010 in WP(C) 28660/2010: W.P.(C).No.28660 OF 2010 6 “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or order or direction calling the records relating to the appointments made by the 5 th respondent, which are pending before the 4 th respondent for approval of appointment and quash the same. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or direction to the 5 th respondent to appoint the petitioner as H.S.A.(Mathematics) as against the existing vacancy in the school. (iii) Issue a writ or order or direction directing the 4 th respondent not to be approved the appointment of 6 th respondent as H.S.A.(Mathematics) as against the claim of the petitioner. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the 4 th respondent, to initiate appropriate action against the Manager contemplated under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the KER. (v) Issue an appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court finds necessary for the ends of justice.” Sd/- Registrar(Judicial)