IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1286 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.JISHA MOL, W/O.RAJESH, AGED 35 YEARS, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT POONAMGODE A.L.P.SCHOOL, KOOVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 14. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, POONAMGODE A.L.P.SCHOOL, KOOVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1286 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in Poonamgode A.L.P. School, Kooveri from 3.7.1997 to 3.9.1997, 1.10.1997 to 12.12.1997 and 2.6.1998 to 28.8.1998. It is stated that all these appointments were approved and the petitioner has thus become entitled to the preferential claim under Rule 51A chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. 2. The petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P1 order dated 9.6.2008 as Lower Primary School Assistant in the school in a permanent vacancy. As per Ext.P3 order dated 27.11.2008, the Assistant Educational Officer took the view that the appointment of the petitioner in the pay scale cannot be approved. It was also held that in view of Ext.P2 Government Order, her appointment could be only on daily wage basis. 3. The petitioner states that the view taken by the Assistant Educational Officer is not correct even as per Ext.P2 Government Order wherein it is stated that “in the case of WPC1286 /2009 2 appointment of Rule 51A claimants, promotion of Rule 43 claimants and appointment/promotion of teachers as Headmasters, temporary Headmasters/teacher in charge, approval will be granted on regular basis if the period of appointment is more than two months.” Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision dated 1.12.2008 before the first respondent. Ext.P4 is pending disposal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P6 Government Order, GO.(P)No.31/2006/GE dated 19.1.2006 wherein it is stated thus: “In the above circumstances, Government are pleased to clarify that the condition in para 6 of GO (P) No.169/2004/GE dated 15.6.2004 shall not apply to the appointments on promotions to the post of Headmaster, to the appointments given under Rule 43, Chapter XIVA KERs and to the reappointments of those who had acquired the claim under Rule 51A, Chapter XIV A KERs, if the re-appointment is to a vacancy having the duration of more than two months as existed prior to the amendment. Necessary amendment to the rules shall be made to this effect and the Director of Public Instruction shall furnish proposals for the same.” 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: WPC1286 /2009 3 “(a) Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 in pay scale. (c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit. (d) Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, for the present, if the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 revision at the earliest. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent would dispose of the revision expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4 revision as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of WPC1286 /2009 4 receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, respondent no.4 and any other affected party. (ii) Petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (iii) The petitioner shall send a copy of the Writ Petition and a true copy of the judgment by registered post to the fourth respondent and shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent at the earliest. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl --