IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 18296 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHYSREE J, W/O. MURALI, AGED 42 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(ENGLISH) (RELIEVED), S.D.V. BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA, (RESIDING AT MANJU NIVAS, PAZHAVEEDU.P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688009) 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 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA 688001. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 5. THE MANAGER, S.D.V. HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS AND GIRLS ALAPPUZHA 688 001. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R5 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18296 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Manager (fifth respondent), the following facts are revealed : Shysree.J., the petitioner in the Writ Petition, was appointed as HSA (English) in S.D.V. Boys Higher Secondary School, Alappuzha with effect from 27.9.2004 in the promotion vacancy of Sreekala, who was promoted as Headmistress. This appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer as per the order dated 14.6.2005 (Endorsement on Exhibit P1). The management has two schools, namely, S.D.V. Boys Higher Secondary School and S.D.V. Girls High School. During the academic year 2005-2006, two divisions and two posts of HSAs in S.D.V Boys Higher Secondary School and one division and one post of HSA in S.D.V. Girls High School were reduced due to fall in students' strength. Consequently, the petitioner was retrenched from service. The petitioner filed an appeal requesting to retain her, by applying the teacher student ratio at 1: 40. That prayer WPC No.18296/2010 2 was not allowed as per Exhibit P2 order dated 28.6.2006 passed by the Director of Public Instruction. However, it was held that the petitioner has to be adjusted in the leave vacancy of one Vigi.M.Nair as UPSA. Thereafter, the Manager appointed the petitioner as UPSA from 15.7.2005 to 31.5.2010 as per Exhibit P3. The District Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment as per Exhibit P4 order dated 8.11.2006 on the ground that the proposal was belated. Later, the petitioner was appointed as HSA (NS) from 27.9.2006 in a transfer vacancy. That appointment was not approved by the District Educational Officer on the ground that the petitioner is not a Rule 51A claimant and also on the ground that the B.Ed. certificate produced by the petitioner is a fake and forged one. The revision against that order was also rejected. 2. It would appear that when a vacancy of HSA (English) arose in the school from 1.6.2008, the Manager appointed one Smt. Manjith Thomas. The petitioner filed Exhibit P10 representation before the District Educational Officer challenging the appointment of Smt.Manjith Thomas. The WPC No.18296/2010 3 petitioner filed Exhibit P11 revision dated 12.5.2009 making the following prayers: “a) Declare that Ext.P7 B.Ed. certificate issued by Magadh University is genuine one in view of the Exhibit P9 letter issued by the Magadh University reviewing Exhibit P6 letter of Government. b) issue direction to the D.E.O., Alappuzha to approve my appointment as U.P.S.A. from 15.7.2005 against the leave vacancy of Smt.Viji.M.Nair in view of the order of D.P.I. as per Exhibit P2 and order of Government as per Exhibit P5. c) issue direction to the Manager to appoint me as H.S.A. (English) from 1.6.2008 onwards ousting fresh hand.” 3. It would appear that the petitioner has challenged in Exhibit P11 all the findings against her in the orders passed by the educational authorities earlier in point of time. The Government passed Exhibit P15 order dated 14.7.2010, after WPC No.18296/2010 4 filing the Writ Petition. The operative portion of Exhibit P15 order reads as follows : “In the above circumstances, the request of the petitioner to issue direction to the Manager of the school to appoint her as HSA (English) from 1.6.2008 cannot be allowed and it is rejected. With regard to the approval of her appointment as UPSA from 15.7.2005, the Manager is directed to furnish fresh proposal along with a request/application for condonation of delay before the concerned authorities as per the provisions laid down in the KER.” 4. The first respondent heard the petitioner and the Manager before passing Exhibit P15 order. A contention was taken by the Manager that the petitioner submitted resignation letter on 1.4.2007 and that resignation was accepted by the Department. This was disputed by the petitioner and she contended that she did not submit resignation. It was also pointed out that 1.4.2007 was a holiday. The contention put WPC No.18296/2010 5 forward that the petitioner herself appeared before the District Educational Officer in connection with her resignation was also denied. In Exhibit P15 order, the first respondent narrated the contentions raised by both sides on the question of resignation. On a perusal of Exhibit P15, it is clear that no positive finding was arrived at by the first respondent on this point. However, the first respondent directed the Manager to make a fresh proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner as UPSA from 15.7.2005. The learned counsel appearing for the Manager also submitted that on finding that the B.Ed. certificate produced by the petitioner was a forged one, the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 1.4.2007, as per the order dated 20.8.2007. If that is so, how could it be said that the resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted? What procedure was adopted before terminating the service of the petitioner is not known. The petitioner has a contention that the B.Ed. certificate produced by her is a genuine one. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P9 certificate dated 22.1.2007 issued by Magadh University stating that the petitioner had passed from the University and the Provisional Certificate sent by the WPC No.18296/2010 6 District Educational Officer for verification was correct. 5. Even after Exhibit P15 order was passed by the first respondent, the correct facts are not forthcoming. It is not necessary in this Writ Petition to resolve such controversy. The limited prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a direction to the Manager to comply with Exhibit P15 order dated 14.7.2010. The request made by the petitioner is just and reasonable. The Manager has not challenged Exhibit P15 order. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent Manager to comply with Exhibit P15 order dated 14.7.2010 passed by the first respondent within a period of three weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl