IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1307 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MINIMOL R. W/O.PRAKASH, AGED 30 YEARS, SANSKRIT TEACHER, EACHUR WEST U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.EACHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM -14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR P.O., KANNUR-2. 4. THEASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR NORTH, P.O. KANNUR-2. 4. THE MANAGER, EACHUR WEST U.P. SCHOOL, P.O. EACHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1307 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner states that he was appointed as Full Time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 21.11.2005 against the retirement vacancy of Smt.M.Lakshmikutty as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. The Assistant Educational Officer declined approval on the ground that Sankrit (Full-Time) is a protected post and therefore, the post was lost after the retirement of Smt.Lakshmikutty, Sanskrit Teacher, on 31.5.2005. Ext.P2 is the Staff Fixation Order for 2005-2006. The petitioner states that more than 40 students have been learning Sanskrit during the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Therefore, there was no justification for the Assistant Educational Officer to give sanction only for part time post, particularly when the petitioner has been offering her service as Full Time Sanskrit Teacher since 21.11.2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that by virtue of diversion of Group 'C', a full time post was sanctioned since 1981 onwards as evidenced by Ext.P2(a) Staff Fixation WPC No.1307/2009 2 Order. The petitioner relies on G.O.(Ms.) No.371/2000/G.Edn. dated 13.11.2000 (Ext.P5) which provides that posts created by virtue of Group 'C' diversion cannot be treated as protected and that such full time posts cannot be converted into part time posts. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P5, it is stated as follows: “Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to clarify that the posts created by virtue of Group 'C' diversion cannot be treated as protected and that such full time posts cannot be converted into part time posts.” 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the Manager of the school preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education and the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director of Public Instructions. The Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal. The revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 14.5.2007. 3. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 revision dated 15.12.2008 before the first respondent. Ext.P8 revision is pending disposal. 4. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following: “(a) Call for the records relating to Exts.P2 and P3 and quash the originals of the same to the WPC No.1307/2009 3 extent it denies full-time post of Sanskrit Teacher in Eachur West U.P. School, Kannur North by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to grant approval to the petitioner as Full Time Sanskrit Teacher. (c) Declare that the Eachur West U.P.School, Kannur North is entitled to have full time post of Sanskrit Teacher continued. (d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Ext.P8 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit. (e) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the first respondent to hear and dispose of Ext.P8 revision expeditiously. Learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 revision would be disposed of at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: WPC No.1307/2009 4 (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P8 revision dated 15.12.2008 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and any other affected party. (ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (iii) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition to respondent No.4, the Manager, by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl