IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1430 of 2009(T) PETITIONER: LEJA ABRAHAM, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT AREECKAL HOUSE, MAIKAVU, VAPPALASSERY P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.P.A.KUNJUMON RESPONDENTS : 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. THE MANAGER, FR JOSEPH MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. DR.P.V.JOSEPH, XIX/256, PUKKUNEL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686673. 6. SRI.PRASAD P.VARGHESE, PUKKUNEL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA 7. SRI.P.T.PAULOSE, HEADMASTER, FR.JOSEPH MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PUTHUPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA 8. T.SMITHA, UPSA, FR.JOSEPH MEMORIAL HSS, PUTHUPPADY, MUVATTUPUZHA (NOW UNDER ORDER OF PROMOTION AS HSA (SOCIAL STUDIES). R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE R8 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R4, R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 1430 OF 2009 T ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd February, 2009 JUDGMENT The averments in the Writ Petition, in short, are the following: The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Social Science) in Fr.Joseph Memorial Higher Secondary School, Puthuppady. The petitioner was appointed on 9.7.2007 in the vacancy of Smt.Sosamma K.A., who retired from service on 30.6.2007. The eighth respondent (T.Smitha) raised an objection before the District Educational Officer stating that she has a preferential claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. It is also stated that there is management dispute between respondents 5 and 6. The District Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner, as per Ext.P4 order dated 26.12.2007. The petitioner and Liza Zacharia have filed Ext.P5 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education challenging Ext.P4 order. Ext.P5 appeal is pending consideration. 2. The eighth respondent (T.Smitha) states that she was initially appointed as UPSA on 5.6.2006 and subsequently, she was promoted as H.S.A as per the appointment order dated 1.6.2007. The eighth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.17588 of 2007, which was disposed of as per W.P.(C) NO.1430 OF 2009 T :: 2 :: Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.11.2008, directing the District Educational Officer to consider the proposal for approval of her appointment. The District Educational Officer has not passed any order pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C) No.17588 of 2007. 3. The only request made by the petitioner is that she also may be directed to be heard by the District Educational Officer while considering the proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent. Learned counsel for the eighth respondent submitted that the petitioner as such does not have any right to be heard in the matter of considering the proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the District Educational Officer had considered the objection raised by the eighth respondent while considering the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the petitioner is also heard by the District Educational Officer while considering the proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent. It would be open to all the parties to put forward their respective contentions before the District Educational Officer. W.P.(C) NO.1430 OF 2009 T :: 3 :: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The District Educational Officer shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner (Leja Abraham) while considering the proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent (T.Smitha) as per the direction in W.P.(C) No.17588 of 2007. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek for any adjournment of the matter before the District Educational Officer on the ground that she was afforded an opportunity of being heard. b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition, a copy of the additional affidavit dated 27.1.2009 along with the Exhibits and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/