IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33651 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR.S,S/O.KANNAN,SUNIL BHAVAN, MANTHARATHURE-POST,PUDUPPANAM-VIA,VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.PIN-673 105. 2. SHINEY,D/O.VIJAYAN.A.V,"DEEPTHI", P.O-PALAYADNADA,VIA-VATAKARA,KOZHIKODE-DISTRICT. PIN-673530. (PETITIONERS WORKING AS H.S.S.TEACHERS, MANIYOOR, PANCHAYATH H.S.SCHOOL) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHPURAM.PIN-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR,HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHKODE.PIN-673501. 4. THE MANAGER,MANIYOOR PANCHAYATH H.S.SCHOOL,(SECRETARY,MANIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH), PO-PALAYAD NADA,VATAKARA,KOZHIKODE-DISTRICT. PIN-673130. BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.33651 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were working as Higher Secondary School Teachers in Maniyoor Panchayath Higher Secondary School from 2004 and 2007-2008 respectively. It is stated that the petitioners have the required qualification for being appointed as HSSTs. It is stated that the Managing Committee of the Panchayath assured that the services of the petitioners would be regularized and, on that assurance, the petitioners were working on daily wage basis. Subsequently, the Panchayath Schools were taken over by the Government as per G.O.(MS) No.2/2010/G.Edn. dated 2.1.2010. As per Ext.P6 G.O. (MS)No.68/2010/G.Edn. dated 26.4.2010, instructions were issued to report the vacancies in the erstwhile Panchayath School to the Public Service Commission. W.P.(C).No.33651 OF 2010 2 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services were not regularized even after the school was taken over by the Government. It is pointed out that in similar circumstances, the services of similarly placed persons were regularized by the Government as per Ext.P4 order dated 31.1.2009 and Ext.P5 order dated 21.11.2009. The petitioners submitted Ext.P7 representation to the Government praying to regularize the appointment of Higher Secondary School Teachers who were appointed in Local Self Government Institutions during 2004-05 and 2005-06. 3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in the Writ Petition are the following: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent 1 to 4 to regularize the service of the petitioners as HSST under the 4th respondent school. b) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to regularize in service as HSST under the 4th respondent management considering the facts. c) Direct the 1st respondent to consider and W.P.(C).No.33651 OF 2010 3 dispose of Ext.P7 representation considering the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P5 order. d) Issue such other writ or directions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, for the time being, it is sufficient if relief (c) is granted, reserving all the contentions of the petitioners. The request is just and reasonable. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner secured another job and at present he is working elsewhere. This fact has been stated in the Writ Petition and in Ext.P7 representation. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the first petitioner having abandoned the job, he is not entitled to any relief. This is a matter to be considered by the first respondent, while W.P.(C).No.33651 OF 2010 4 considering Ext.P7 representation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Any one of the petitioners would be entitled to appear before the first respondent on behalf of the other petitioner. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. As per the judgment dated 7th October, 2010 in WP(C) No.30744 of 2010, the first respondent was directed to consider a similar representation. The petitioners in that Writ Petition also were working in the same school. To avoid the likelihood of passing conflicting orders, it would be ideal, if W.P.(C).No.33651 OF 2010 5 the first respondent considers the representation in the present case as well as the representation in WP(C) No.30744 of 2010 together. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms