IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 18750 of 2006(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BINDU.P.NAIR, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, TEACHER IN CHARGE, KARACODE U.P.SCHOOL, KARODE, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED MR.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, KARACODE U.P. SCHOOL, KARODE, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SMT. JAITHA RANI, SANSKRIT TEACHER, KARACODE U.P. SCHOOL, KARODE, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI ADVS. MR.MARTIN G.THOTTAN FOR R5 MR.N.SUGATHAN FOR R4 SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.18750 of 2006 ====================================== Dated this the 20th day of February 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the teacher in charge of Karacode Upper Primary School has filed this Writ Petition on 17.7.2006 challenging Ext.P5 letter dated 12.7.2006 sent by the Deputy Director of Education, Thiruvananthapuram to the Assistant Educational Officer, Parassala. The operative portion of Ext.P5 reads as follows:- “In the circumstances referred to, you are directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that Miss.S.Jaitha Rani takes classes in the school timely and regularly without being hindered or blocked by the present Teacher in Charge. Moreover you are also directed that you should verify and locate the strength of children desirous of studying Sanskrit in the school and fix the Staff Fixation 2006-2007 accordingly. An action taken report should be furnished to the undersigned in due course.” 2. The petitioner challenges the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education to the Assistant Educational Officer to ensure that the fifth respondent is not hindered or blocked by the teacher in charge from taking classes in the school. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that if the post of Sanskrit Teacher is sanctioned in the school without sufficient students, she may not be held liable for the loss caused to the Government. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing today, Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner W.P.(C)No.18750 of 2006 2 submitted that the petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting the case any further. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the fifth respondent has been unnecessarily dragged to this Court by the petitioner in collusion with the Manager and that she was thereby forced to incur unnecessary expenditure. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that it is evident from the submission now made by the petitioner that she is not desirous of prosecuting the Writ Petition, that this Writ Petition was not instituted with bona fides. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Since the petitioner who is the master of litigation, does not wish to prosecute the Writ Petition any further, this Court cannot proceed to enquire into the dispute and enter a finding on the merits. However, the conduct of the petitioner in filing a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Director of Education directing the Assistant Educational Officer, Parassala within the territorial limits of whose jurisdiction the school is situate, to ensure that the fifth respondent is not hindered or blocked by the petitioner from taking classes is in my opinion, really an abuse of process of the Court. As the teacher in charge of the school, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the directions in Ext.P5. Therefore I am satisfied that this Writ Petition was filed without any bona fides. In the result, recording the submission of the learned counsel for the W.P.(C)No.18750 of 2006 3 petitioner that the petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting this Writ Petition, I dismiss the Writ Petition. However, the petitioner shall pay to the fifth respondent the sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs. If the said amount is not paid within two months, the Manager of the school and the Headmaster shall recover the amount from the petitioner's salary and pay it over to the fifth respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/