IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 738 of 2006() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34480/2004 Dated 10/02/2006 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------ S.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, P.M.V.HIGH SCHOOL,PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE MANAGER, P.M.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA. ADDL. 3. S.SUDHAKUMARI, MANAGER, PMV TTI, HS & LP SCHOOL, PERINGARA, THIRUVALLA. ADDL. 4. INDU R.NATH, INDU SADAN, VALLAMKULAM.P.O, THIRUVALLA. 5. S.PADMAJA DEVI, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), P.M.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGARA. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.R.BINDU FOR R1 & 6 SRI,.GEORGE VARGHESE SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH SMT.VIJAYALEKSHMI FOR R3 SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR) FOR R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO.738 OF 2006 - D ----------------------------------------- Dated 16th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was a U.P.S.A in P.M.V.H.S., Peringara, Thiruvalla. He was qualified to be promoted as H.S.A. (Malayalam). While so, one H.S.A. (Malayalam) retired from service on 31.3.2003. The Manager of the school has, apart from the above High School, one T.T.I also. Both the schools are treated as one unit for the purpose of appointment, seniority and promotion. Though the petitioner/appellant was a claimant for the said vacancy of H.S.A. (Malayalam) under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R., the Manager on 16.7.2003 effected certain transfers between those two schools. The Headmistress of the High School, who was an H.S.A. (Malayalam) was transferred as the Principal of the T.T.I. There is only one post of T.S.A. (Malayalam) in the T.T.I. With the posting of the Principal, that post was also filled up. There were four sanctioned posts of T.S.As in the T.T.I., out WA 738/2006 2 of which one is T.S.A. (Malayalam). So, the transferee occupied the post of Principal as also the post of T.S.A. (Malayalam) in the T.T.I.. The existing T.S.A. (Malayalam) in the T.T.I was transferred to the High School. Thus the vacancy of H.S.A. (Malayalam), which arose in the High School as a result of the retirement of the existing incumbent on 31.3.2003 was filled up. The result was that the appellant/petitioner lost his right under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. Later, another H.S.A. (Social Studies) working in the High School was transferred to the T.T.I., as per the same order. The result was that the only vacancy that arose during the academic year was in the post of H.S.A.(Social Studies) and that too in the High School. Relying on the orders issued by the Government, the said post of H.S.A. (Social Studies) was filled up by an H.S.A. (English). As mentioned earlier, though the aggrieved petitioner moved the D.E.O., the transfers were approved by the said officer by Ext.P3 order. If the petitioner was promoted as H.S.A. (Malayalam), another Rule 51A claimant waiting outside would have got appointment as U.P.S.A in his place. The said incumbent moved the D.E.O., against the transfers effected by the Manager. That motion was repelled by the D.E.O., by Ext.P5 order. So, the writ petition was filed, challenging Exts.P3 and P5. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the impugned orders. But, gave liberty to the WA 738/2006 3 appellant/petitioner to move the Government, seeking appropriate reliefs. There is yet another reason for the learned Single Judge not to interfere with the impugned orders. That is, the 4th respondent's appointment as H.S.A. (English) has already been approved by the Government. Since there is no challenge to that order, the same has to be implemented. In view of the above facts, we feel that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge permitting the appellant/petitioner to move the Government for appropriate reliefs, is a just and proper order. So, we find no reason to interfere with the direction, which, we feel, is in favour of him. It is also pointed out that the appellant/petitioner has, actually, been promoted as H.S.A. (Malayalam) on 7.6.2005. Now what remains is only his claim for retrospective promotion. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Nm/