IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 35411 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHARMILA.P, PUTHUSSERI, PALERI.P.O, KUTTIYADI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 508. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. 3. HEAD MASTER, VELOM HIGH SCHOOL, CHERAPURAM, VADAKARA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 35411/2009 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 25.2.2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 26.5.2005. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DECISION OF THE IT ADVISORY COUNCIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35411 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner says that she was working as Computer Instructor/Computer Lab Assistant in Velom High School, Cherapuram, Vatakara Educational District, Kozhikode. It is stated that she was appointed on the basis of an interview conducted by the school authorities after inviting applications. She was selected for the post. She joined duty on 14.7.2003. It is also stated that she draws a lumpsum of Rs.2,900/- as salary. It is also stated that the petitioner worked in the school uninterruptedly till 10.10.2009. She relies on Ext.P1 experience certificate. The allegation in the Writ Petition is that the third respondent Headmaster directed the petitioner, without giving any notice, not to appear for duty. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner into the service of Computer Lab Assistant/Computer Instructor in the school. Another W.P.(C) No.35411/2009 2 prayer is for a direction to the first respondent to furnish the details with regard to the implementation of IT @ School programme with specific reference to the service conditions of Computer Lab Assistant/Computer Instructor. 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The following facts are revealed from the counter affidavit. The petitioner was appointed as Computer Lab Assistant on 14.7.2003 on a remuneration of Rs.75/- per day. The payment was increased to Rs.1,750/- per month from July 2004 onwards. The Director of Public Instructions issued Ext.R3(a) circular dated 26.5.2005 directing the management to terminate the service of Computer Instructors with effect from 31.3.2005. In compliance with Ext.R3(a), the IT advisory council decided on 22.8.2005 to terminate the service of the petitioner with effect from 30.6.2005. The decision of the committee is produced as Ext.R3(b). The third respondent states that in view of Ext.R3(a) circular, the service of the petitioner cannot be availed in the school. The Headmaster of the school was bound to obey the directions in the circular. In answer to the contention that the petitioner has got experience as Lab W.P.(C) No.35411/2009 3 Assistant for five years, it is stated that she was working as Computer Lab Assistant only from 14.7.2003 to 30.6.2005 excluding summer vacation and holidays. 3. Computer instructor/Computer Lab Assistant is not a post which is provided under the Kerala Education Act or Kerala Education Rules. The school in question is an aided school. Going by the scheme of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, the appointing authority in the school is the Manager. The salary of the teachers and staff has to be paid by the Government. There is no case for the petitioner that she was paid salary by the Government. She was not appointed to any post recognised by the Kerala Education Act and Rules. She is not a regular staff of the school. She is not a Government employee as well. Then the question is what is the right of the petitioner to continue under the project IT @ School. Computer Instructors/Computer Lab Assistants were being engaged in Government schools and private schools to equip the teachers in the school with the IT knowledge. The purpose was to engage the services of the IT professionals only for a limited period to enable the teachers to deal with the work after a few years. The W.P.(C) No.35411/2009 4 scheme recognised payment of daily wages to the IT professionals. The Parent Teachers Association was to find out the resources for payment to the Computer Instructors/Computer Lab Assistants. In Ext.R3(a) circular, it is mentioned that the arrangement is no more required as IT @ School has trained 34237 High School Assistants. Every school has an SITC who had undergone “training and re-training to co-ordinate and assist IT education in schools”. As per Ext.R3(a), the Director of Public Instructions issued directions to terminate the services of IT instructors. The Headmasters were directed to ensure that the termination took place before 31st March 2005. It was also made clear in Ext.R3(a) as follows: “Those who wish to continue the service of the instructors as Lab Assistants may do so, at their own risk and cost.” 4. I do not think that the petitioner has any legal right to continue in service. Therefore, she is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for W.P.(C) No.35411/2009 5 the petitioner submitted that dismissal of this Writ Petition should not stand in the way of the petitioner invoking other remedies, if any, as per law. It is made clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not have such an effect. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl