IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26128 of 2007(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- SR. JESSY JOSEPH KAVUMKAL, D/O.JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, TEACHER IN BIOLOGY, GOVT. VHSS, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ROY THOMAS, ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARPOOKKARA. *ADDL.R5. SMT. JAYA.G, BIJU MANDIRAM, UPPAVILA, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 696606. *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/01/08 IN I.A. NO. 549/08. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR ADDL.R5, ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR ADDL.R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26128/2007-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS). NO. 30/96/H. EDN. DTD. 12/02/1996 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS). NO. 171/97/H. EDN. DTD. 08/12/1997. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO. 1450/2005 DTD. 01/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, K.E. COLLEGE, MANNANAM, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.3. DTD. 25/09/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DTD. 19/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF GOVERNMENT VHSS MATHIRAPPILLY, KOTHAMANGALAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 22/07/2005. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E4/687/2007 DTD. 22/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.1. BEARING NO. G.O. (RT). NO. 350/08/H. EDN. DTD. 28/02/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT (HINDU) DTD. 16/08/2007. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E4/687/07 OF THE DIRECTOR DTD. 22/08/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26128/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P6 and P8. Ext.P6 is an order relieving the petitioner, who was then working as a Teacher in Biology on deployment from the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Arpookkara. Against Ext.P6, the petitioner had filed Ext.P7 representation before the first respondent and pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition, that was considered and Ext.P8 order was passed. By amending this writ petition, this order to the extent it upheld Ext.P6 is also under challenge. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in K.E College, Mannanam with effect from 5.9.1996. He continued in that post till 1.6.2005 afternoon. Following the de-linking of pre-degree Wp(c).No.26128/07 2 course, Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders were issued by the Ist respondent, which inter alia provided for deployment of excess teachers in the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. Consequently, Ext.R5(a) order was issued by the 3rd respondent deploying the teachers mentioned in the list attached thereto. This order states that the Government had by its order dated 1.2.2005, accorded sanction for the deployment of junior lecturers rendered surplus consequent on de-linking of pre-degree, as non vocational teachers in Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department on working arrangement basis till regular appointment is made in the respective posts, subject to the provisions of the Government Order. This order also states that despite the deployment, the salary to the incumbents will be paid to the colleges where they were originally appointed. 3. In pursuance to Ext.R5(a), petitioner whose name occurs at Sl.No.21 thereof, was deployed at the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Mathirapilly, Kothamangalam. She Wp(c).No.26128/07 3 continued in that school till 19.10.2006, when at her request, she was transferred to Vocational Higher Secondary School, Arpookkara, where she was continuing. 4. In the meanwhile the 5th respondent who was selected and appointed on a regular basis based on a recruitment conducted by the PSC, was appointed at the VHSC, Arthungal. She has been representing for a transfer to a place, in or near Kottayam. It would appear that in the Adalath held on 22.8.2007 her complaint in that regard was considered and the 3rd respondent issued Ext.R5(b) order, transferring the 5th respondent to the Vocational Higher Secondary School, Arpookkara in Kottayam District. Consequently by Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved with directions to report before the Director of collegiate Education for further proceedings. It was there upon petitioner made Ext.P7 representation and this writ petition was filed. Wp(c).No.26128/07 4 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that going by Ext.R5(a) and the tenor of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, she is liable to be relieved only when a “fresh and regular” PSC hand joins duty. It is stated that the 5th respondent was already appointed and was continuing at Arthungal and is therefore not a fresh appointee competent to replace the petitioner. 6. The fact remains that, it was by Ext.R5(a) that the petitioner was deployed and this order makes it clear that the deployment was on work arrangement basis till regular appointment is made in the respective posts. Therefore, once regular appointment is made to the post to which the petitioner was deployed, the petitioner is liable to the relieved in terms of Ext.R3(a) itself. The fact that the 5th respondent is appointed by regular recruitment is not disputed. The facts show that the 5th respondent was selected by the Public Service commission and was advised and appointed in the Arthungal school from where she was Wp(c).No.26128/07 5 transferred to Arpookkara. Therefore the person who is replacing the petitioner is a regularly appointed candidate. If that be so, going by the terms of Ext.R5(a), the petitioner is liable to be relieved. I am not able to take a different view only because the 5th respondent is not a fresh appointee. This is precisely what has been done in Ext.P6. 7. Counsel for the petitioner is complaining about the undue hurry that has been shown in issuing Ext.R5(b) order. True, in the Adalath held on 22.8.2007, a decision to transfer the 5th respondent was taken and an order in that regard was issued on the same day. Exts.R5(b) and Ext.P6 were issued on the same day. However the fact remains to be noted is that Ext.R5(b) is an order passed pursuant to an Adalat that was held. The purpose of the Adalat is to give the relief without delay and that has been done int his case. Therefore, I see no error in issuing Ext.R5(a) or Ext.P6. Thus on merits I have found that the petitioner is liable to be relieved consequent on the posting of the 5th respondent, Wp(c).No.26128/07 6 Exts.P6 or P8 are liable to be upheld. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. Wp(c).No.26128/07 7