IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 1442 of 2008(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27908/2007 Dated 12/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------------ R. KRISHNAVENI, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNA KAMMATH, AGED 36 YEARS, MOOPPILAMADAM, THRIKKARIYOOR.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, NOW WORKING AS PEON, D.B.H.S THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI. SURESH JEEVAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. VARGHESE M JACOB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R2 SMT. NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, R3 - R4 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- C.O.C.No. 1442 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Peon in Devaswom Board Higher Secondary School, Thrikkariyoor. It is stated that she was appointed as full time menial. She was promoted and posted as Peon in D.B.H.S., Thiruvalla with effect from 1/3/2005. She assumed duty as peon on 29/10/2005. The manager sent the appointment order for the approval of the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer called for an explanation from the manager as to why the petitioner was appointed with effect from 1/3/2005. The manager did not produce the documents. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved. The petitioner filed W.P(C)No.27908 of 2007. As per the judgment dated 12/6/2008, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Secretary of Travancore Devaswom Board to produce all the relevant records before the District Educational Officer to facilitate the latter to take a final decision in the matter of approval of appointment of the petitioner as peon. The allegation in the contempt case is that the manager and the C.O.C.No. 1442/2008 2 District Educational Officer, who are the respondents in the contempt case disobeyed the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P(C)No.27908 of 2007. 2. When the contempt case came up on 14/1/2009, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the District Educational Officer had passed an order dated 27/11/2008 in compliance with the judgment of this Court. By the order passed by the District Educational Officer, the proposal for approval was rejected on the ground that all the relevant documents were not placed before him by the Secretary of the Devaswom Board. On the basis of the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, it was directed that notice in the contempt case need be issued only to the first respondent, the manager. 3. During the pendency of the contempt case, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Educational Officer before the Director of Public Instructions. The Director of Public Instructions disposed of the revision filed by the petitioner as per the order dated 1/3/2010. The Director of Public Instructions directed the District Educational Officer to approve C.O.C.No. 1442/2008 3 the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1/11/2005. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of the order passed by the Director of Public Instructions, the District Educational Officer has passed an order dated 20/5/2010 approving the appointment of the petitioner as probationary peon with effect from 1/11/2005. It is submitted by the learned Government pleader that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, though belatedly, by the order now passed by the District Educational Officer. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that it is necessary to further proceed with the contempt case. The contempt case is accordingly closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm