IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1569 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARY P.M., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.SRI.NAISAL GEORGE, H.S.A(SOCIAL STUDIES), ST.ALBERT'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT BOMBAY NIVAS, MARIAKUTTY, JOHN ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF VERAPOLY, ST.ALBERT'S H.S.S. CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. A.D.ANTONY, H.S.A.(SOCIAL STUDIES), HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF JESUS, KOTHAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHMODD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2929 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1569 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.7.2007 SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE R1. HEREIN. EXT.P3: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDVIT FILED BY R1 HEREIN IN W.P.(C) NO.23435/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.23435/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 23.10.2007 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDVIT FILED BY R1 IN W.P.(C) NO.31820/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.31820/2007 DTD 2.1.2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER DTD 7.1.2008 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P9: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 9.1.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2-1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C:3939/2007 DTD 24.10.2007. EXT.R2-2: COPY OF MEMO DATED 24.10.2007. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos. 1569 & 2929 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT These two writ petitions relate to conflicting claims by the petitioners in these two writ petitions for appointment to the post of HSA (Social Studies) in St. Albert's Higher Secondary School, Ernakulm. Originally, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1569/08 was appointed by the Manager to that post. The appointment order was forwarded to the DEO for approval. Before orders on the same could be passed by the DEO, the Manager requested the DEO to return the papers. The DEO returned the papers. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.1569/08 challenged the proceedings by filing W.P.(C) No.31820/2007. When the same came up for hearing, after hearing the two petitioners in these two writ petitions as well as the Manager, I disposed of that writ petition by Ext.P7 judgment in W.P. (C) No.1569/08 recording the submission made by the DEO in the counter affidavit submitted by him to the effect that he has decided to withdraw the impugned order so as to pass an appropriate order in respect of W.P.(c) No.1569 & Con.case 2 the proposal in the appointment order in favour of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.1569/08. 2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.2929/08 raised a contention that the DEO has no power to reconsider the matter without pronouncing on merits about the contentions of the parties. I left it open to be decided by the DEO in accordance with law. Before the DEO could pass fresh orders as undertaken by him, the Manager of the School terminated the service of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.1569/08, which was challenged by her in that writ petition. I had granted an interim order of stay of termination of her service also, in that writ petition. It is in the meanwhile the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.2929/08 filed that writ petition putting forward a claim that the petitioner in that writ petition had a better claim than the petitioner in the other writ petition, since he is a Rule 43 claimant. Apparently because of the pendency of that writ petition the DEO did not pass any fresh orders as undertaken by him and recorded in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P. (C) No.1569/08, as a result of which the stalemate continues. To resolve this stalemate, I suggested to the parties that it would be proper that the DEO passes fresh orders in the matter after W.P.(c) No.1569 & Con.case 3 hearing all the parties. A consensus has been arrived at to that effect. 3. Accordingly, in terms of that consensus I direct the DEO, Ernakulam to pass fresh orders, after hearing the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the Manager of the School. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are so passed, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.1569/08 shall be allowed to continue. Till then, interim order dated 29.1.2008 in W.P. (C) No.2929/08 also would continue. I make it abundantly clear that it would be open to the DEO to consider all contentions of every party including contentions in Ext.P3 in W.P. (C) No.2929/08. I also make it abundantly clear that I have not considered any of the contentions of the parties on merits and it would be open to the DEO to consider the same on his own, in accordance with law. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.1569 & Con.case 4