IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17520 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIDDEEK ARAKKANDIYIL ARAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.NARIPPATTA, VIA KALLACHI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER CRESCENT HIGH SCHOOL, VANIMEL P.O.KODIYURA, PIN 673 515. 5. P.P.SUHAIL, C/O. HEADMASTER CRESCENT HIGH SCHOOL, VANIMEL, P.O.KODIYURA PIN 673 515. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17520 of 2011(L) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 DT.3.7.01 AND THE APPROVAL BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN FORM 27 DATED 29.10.01 AND THE APPROVAL BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.132/09/G.EDN DATED 17.6.09. P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.70161/J2/09 G.EDN DATED 27.1.10 P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9.6.10 WITH COPY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.6.10. P7:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.6.11 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. RKC //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.17520/2011-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to the Director of Public Instruction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 which is filed as a revision petition against the communication Ext.P7 of the District Educational Officer. 2. The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A (Maths) by the fourth respondent-Manager with effect from 03/07/2001 to 27/10/2001 in a maternity leave vacancy. The said appointment was approved as evident from Ext.P1 order. In a latter vacancy from 29/10/2001 to 16/01/2002 also the petitioner was appointed and approval was granted. 3. It is contended that the petitioner is a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A Kerala Education Rules. 4. The petitioner submits that the Government passed an order as G.O.(MS).No.11/02/G.Edn., dated 07/01/2002, which was held as illegal by a learned Single Judge and later it was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Baiju v. Suguna Prakash [2003 (2) KLT 182]. The Division Bench observed that the teachers already appointed should be protected by extending the protection of Clause 3(a) of G.O.(MS).No.11/02/G.Edn., W.P.(C). No.17520/2011 -:2:- dated 07/01/2002 without effecting the rights of the teachers already appointed on the basis of the Government Order. Ext.P3 is the later order passed by the Government declaring that Rule 51A claimants who were in the service on 16/11/2002 are entitled for reappointment based on the old ratio 1:1:1. Thereafter, a circular No.70161/J2/09/G.Edn. dated 27/01/2010 was issued by the Government clarifying that the claim under Rule 51A in the context of Ext.P3 includes all persons appointed in short term leave vacancies on or before 16/11/2002. By Ext.P5 representation, the petitioner sought for appointment in a future vacancy as per ratio 1:1:1. It is pointed out that disregarding Ext.P5, the fourth respondent appointed the fifth respondent as H.S.A (Social Science) against which objection was submitted as per Ext.P6. But in the meanwhile, by Ext.P7, the District Educational Officer informed that the petitioner's right is to get appointment only in a future vacancy. The same is under challenge before the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext.P8. 5. In the light of the prayer made by the petitioner, I am not going into the merits of the claims raised by him. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 within a period of two months from the date of W.P.(C). No.17520/2011 -:3:- receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. If any approval is made on the appointment of the fifth respondent in the meanwhile, the same will be subject to the decision to be taken by the second respondent on Ext.P8. The petitioner will forward a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment to the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms