IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24298 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SINI JOY, W/O.P.K. ALEXANDER, PANUVELIL HOUSE, CHOORAKODU.P.O, ADOOR (LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST.MARY'S MAHILA MANDIRAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ADOOR) BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR. 5. CORPORATE MANAGER, MMC CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS, PULAMON P.O. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24298 of 2008 P -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T As per Ext.P1 order of appointment, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in St.Mary's M.M.U.P. School, Adoor. The Manager forwarded the papers for approval to the Assistant Educational Officer. As per Ext.P2 order dated 7.11.2002, the Assistant Educational Officer rejected the approval on the ground that approval of appointment of senior claimants was pending. On appeal against Ext.P2, the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P3 order dated 15.12.2003, rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appeal was belated. A revision was filed before the Director of Public Instruction, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the District Educational Officer. It is stated that in the meanwhile, all the senior teachers who are awaiting approval of appointment have got their appointment approved. The Director of Public Instruction rejected the revision on a different ground, viz., the appointment of the petitioner was made on 29.10.2001 and in view of the ban imposed by the State Government, the appointment could not be approved. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction. It is stated that the ban was withdrawn as per Exts.P5 and P6 Government Orders. It is also stated by the petitioner that subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, one Smt. Mini Thomas was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the very same school and that appointment was approved as per Ext.P7 order dated 7.1.2002. WP(C) No.24298/2008 2 2. The petitioner submitted a revision before the first respondent challenging the orders rejecting the approval of his appointment. The said revision was disposed of by the first respondent as per Ext.P8 order dated 16.7.2008. Ext.P8 order reads as follows:- “I am to invite your attention to the reference cited. As the school is newly upgraded one and no protected teachers were absorbed till, your revision petition for the approval of appointment of Smt. Sini Joy as LPSA at St.Mary's MMUPS, Adoor is rejected.” The petitioner submits that neither she nor the Manager was heard by the first respondent before passing Ext.P8 order. Learned Government Pleader could not dispute this contention raised by the petitioner. Ext.P8 does not give elaborate reasons for arriving at the conclusion. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P11 Government Order and Ext.P12 Circular in support of her contention that as she was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in the pre- upgraded lower primary section of the school which was in existence prior to 22.5.1979, her appointment should have been approved in the light of the Government Order and Circular referred to above. Ext.P8 order is liable to be quashed since the petitioner was not heard by the first respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:- WP(C) No.24298/2008 3 (i) Ext.P8 order is quashed. (ii) The first respondent shall consider the revision afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager. (iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (iv) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment by registered post to the fifth respondent and shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. (v) The first respondent shall dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks