IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27851 of 2007(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LAKSHMI DEVI. P.N., W/O.E.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MAKA NIVAS, MANCHIRA ROAD, GURUVAYOOR, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.PREETHY, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(HINDI), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, GURUVAYOOR. R1 & R2 BY SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30837 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 18/11/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.27851/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM DT. 17/11/1995. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM VIDE EI.2155/97 DT. 9/2/98. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/7/1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER ECI-2669/97 DT. 17/10/2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/10/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ECI-2669/97 DT.5/6/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 24/8/2006 IN WP(C) NO.14982/06. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ECI-5890/2006 DT.11/7/07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.27851 & 30837 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T These two writ petitions relate to a question of seniority and promotion as between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who are Hindi Teachers of an unaided school affiliated to the CBSE, run by the Guruvayur Devaswom Board. Originally, Ext.P8 order [in W.P.(C). No.30837/2007] was passed holding that the petitioner was senior to the 4th respondent and therefore, is eligible for promotion as H.S.A. (Hindi) ahead of the 4th respondent. Although the 4th respondent challenged the same in W.P.(C).No.14982/2006, that challenge was repelled by Ext.P11 judgment on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable against the school. W.A.No.1602/2006 filed against that judgment was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the 4th respondent filed another representation on the same issue before the 1st respondent, who directed the managing committee to take a decision on the complaint filed by the 4th respondent, which resulted in Ext.P13 order, whereby the decision in Ext.P8 was reversed in favour of the 4th respondent. That is under challenge before me. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P13 being an order reversing the earlier order, Ext.P8 which is in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been given a w.p.c.27851/07 & cc 2 notice and hearing before passing that order insofar as it has resulted in very serious civil consequences to the petitioner. It is admitted by the respondents that prior to passing Ext.P13 order, no notice or hearing was given to the petitioner. In view of the same, all parties before me, viz., the petitioner, the Devaswom Board and the 4th respondent agree that the 2nd respondent-Managing Committee can be directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent. In the above circumstances, Ext.P13 order in W.P.(C). No.30837/2007 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the entire matter in the right perspective in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till then, status quo as on today shall be maintained. All contentions of the parties, technical and on merits, are left open to be agitated if necessity arises. The parties shall place their respective contentions before the 2nd respondent in writing, within a period of three weeks to enable the 2nd respondent to pass a reasoned order considering all the contentions of the parties. 3. In view of the decision in W.P.(C).No.30837/2007, no separate order is necessary in W.P.(C).No.27851/2007 and the same is also disposed of in terms of the above said decision. There also the w.p.c.27851/07 & cc 3 contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated in future proceedings, if necessity arises. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge