IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24761 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HASEENA P AGE 24 YEARS, D/O.P.ALI FULL TIME URDU TEACHER, AM.U.P.SCHOOL- ATTEERI P.O.PUTHUR, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,TIRUR 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE MANAGER A.M.U.P.SCHOOL ATEERI, P.O.PUTHUR, KOTTAKKAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.24761 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT In the manner which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to respondent No.5. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Full-time Urdu Teacher in A.M.U.P.School, Atteeri, Kottakkal, Malapuram District with effect from 2.4.2004 in a vacancy which arose consequent on the retirement of one P.Ali, Urdu teacher. The Assistant Educational Officer partially rejected the proposal for approval and approved the appointment only with effect from 1.2.2006 (Ext.P1). The District Educational Officer also dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Educational officer. The matter was taken before the Director of Public Instruction. As per Ext.P4 order dated 21.11.2005, the Director of Public Instruction W.P.(C).No.24761 OF 2010 2 dismissed the revision filed by the Manager. The rejection of approval was on the basis that a protected teacher was not appointed by the Manager. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that later, when the Manager appointed a protected teacher on 1.2.2006, the appointment of the petitioner was approved with reference to that date and it was endorsed by the Assistant Educational officer in the Ext.P1 appointment order. However, the period from 2.8.2004 to 31.1.2006 was not considered for approval in the case of the petitioner. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that for academic years 2003-04 and 2004-05, there was no protected teacher in the category of Urdu in Vengara Educational Sub District. Exts.P5 and P6 are relied upon by the petitioner in support of this contention. It is contented that as no protected teacher was available in Vengara Educational Sub District, the Manager could not have appointed a protected teacher. It is W.P.(C).No.24761 OF 2010 3 therefore, submitted that non approval of the appointment of the petitioner from 2.8.2004 to 31.1.2006 is illegal. Challenging the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, the Manager filed Ext.P8 revision dated 17.8.2009 before the Government. Ext.P8 revision is pending. The petitioner has also filed a revision before the Government, which is produced by her as Ext.P9, as per I.A.11551/2010. Ext.P9 revision is also pending. 4. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are the following: “i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P2, P3 and P4; ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Full-time Urdu Teacher for the period from 2.8.2004 to 31.1.2006; iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P8 statutory revision filed by the Manager; W.P.(C).No.24761 OF 2010 4 iv) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Honorable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner confines her relief to relief no.(iii) for the time being and also for a direction to dispose of Ext.P9 revision. The request made by the petitioner is just and reasonable. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P8 and P9 revisions filed respectively by the Manager and the petitioner, 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. The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of W.P.(C).No.24761 OF 2010 5 I.A.11551 of 2010 before the Government. The petitioner shall also send a copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition by registered post to the Manager and shall produce proof of the same before the Government. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms