IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16903 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RENCHU R,W/O. SURESH P. MAMKOOTTATHIL HOUSSE, MEZHUVELI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA PADMANABHODAYAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MEZHUVELI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.M.P.MARY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONALOFFICER, A THIRUVALLA. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, S.N. TRUST SCHOOL, KOLLAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16903 of 2009-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is retrenched from the school managed by the 5th respondent. She was appointed as an H.S.A. (Maths) and was retrenched from service on 28.6.2006. Presently, the petitioner has filed Ext.P15 revision petition against Ext.P14 order passed by the Director of Public Instruction. The view taken therein is that there is no post to accommodate the petitioner as HSST (Maths). The petitioner contends that in Ext.P4 order of the D.P.I., it was held that there is no rule to retrench the existing teacher for providing fresh H.S.A. (English) hands. In fact, as per Ext.P4, the District Educational Officer was directed to examine the position afresh. But it appears that while implementing the said order, again the petitioner was not given the due benefit which led to the present controversy. 2. Even though this court by Ext.P5 judgment, issued directions to the District Educational Officer to take further steps in accordance with Ext.P4, the fourth respondent District Educational Officer passed Ext.P9 order, whereby it was held that the transfer order of the petitioner is not wpc 16903/2009 2 produced and accordingly the proposal was rejected. This was challenged in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext.P12, which was disposed of by Ext.P14. In fact by Ext.P6, the third respondent had approved the appointment of the petitioner as H.S.A (Maths) in Nattika with effect from 15/07/2002 onwards. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relevant principles have not been considered by the authorities below while rendering the impugned orders. It is pointed out that the petitioner should have been given due accommodation in the light of Ext,.P4 order. 4. Whatever that be, it is up to the revisional authority to consider and pass orders on the merits of the matter after hearing the petitioner and the Manager. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P15 after hearing the petitioner and the 5th respondent Manager within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/