IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26286 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJANI.T.S, H.S.S.T.(JUNIOR) ECONOMICS, S.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PALEMAD.P.O, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN, ADV. SRI.S.SREEDEV. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE MANAGER, S.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PALEMAD.PO, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, S.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PALEMAD.P.O, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26286/2008-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACD.A2/17947/HSE/02 DT. 16/12/2005 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A5/1473/05 DT. 08/08/2008 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS).NO.398/2002/G. EDN. DT. 29/11/2002. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACD.A2/17947/HSE/02 DT. 07/04/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER BY R.3. DTD. 16/10/08 IN FAVOUR OF SMT. C. DEVAYANI. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26286/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P2, the proceedings dated 8.8.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P1 is the order issued appointing the petitioner as HSST (Junior) Economics in the 4th respondent's school. The appointment was made with effect from 24.1.2005 and was also approved. Petitioner was working as such and salary was also paid till August, 2005. However, in August, 2005, on the basis that Ext.P2 order was issued by the 3rd respondent, the Manager did not pay salary to the petitioner. 2. Ext.P2 is an order dated 8.8.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent referring to Ext.P3 Government Order dated 29.11.2002, cancelling the approval granted to the WP(c).No.26286/2008 2 petitioner's appointment. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Counsel mainly raised two contentions. One is that, much earlier to Ext.P2, the staff fixation in the school was revised by Ext.P4 order dated 7.4.2005 and that in terms of Ext.P5, three posts of Teachers in Economics were sanctioned and that it was without considering Exts.P4, Ext.P2 order was issued on 8.8.2008. Yet another contention that is raised is by referring to Ext.P15. As seen from Ext.P2, the approval cancelled was not only that of the petitioner but also was of one Smt. C. Devayani, HSST (Junior) Maths. During the pendency of this writ petition, Smt. Devayani had moved the Government and the Government issued Ext.P5 order dated 16.10.2008 directing that Smt. Devayani be retained as Supernumerary with effect from 2003-04 academic year. Petitioner submits that she is also entitled to similar benefits WP(c).No.26286/2008 3 4. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that, there is not even a reference to Ext.P4, the revised staff strength. that apart, the other teacher who is affected by Ext.P2 is ordered to be retained as supernumerary as per Ext.P5. If everything is similar there is no reason why the petitioner should be discriminated. I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to file a representation to the 3rd respondent claiming the benefit of Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 and if such representation is filed within 2 weeks from today, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.26286/2008 4