IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 40 of 2011(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MINI DIVAKARAN, HEADMISTRESS, KANICHERRY L.P.S, KOOTTIKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (L) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 572. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.40 Of 2011- D ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Headmistress of Kanicherry L.P.School, Koottikada, Kollam District. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Exhibit P4, whereby the petitioner is directed to remit an amount of `4,60,872/-, which represents the salary paid for the year 2004-05 to certain teachers. 2. According to the petitioner, even though the strength was initially fixed for the year 2004-05, by the Assistant Educational Officer, there was a visit by the Super Check Cell on 17.8.2004 and they found that the strength was actually not correct. It is pointed out that no new appointment was made in the School except for the post of Arabic Teacher. But, ultimately, the 1st respondent abolished the second divisions in standard 1 to 5 of the School with effect from 15.7.2004. This resulted in five teachers becoming surplus and it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they were eligible for protection. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be seen W.P.(C)No.40/11 -2- from Exhibit P1 that they were eligible for protection. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner points out that the fixation of liability against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 3. Aggrieved by Exhibit P4, the petitioner approached the Government by filing Exhibit P5, which is styled as an appeal. 4. There will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Exhibit P5 after hearing the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, recovery based on Exhibit P4 will be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of the judgment for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn