IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16885 of 2008(I) PETITIONER: ------------ GIRIJA.R., W/O.MANOJ KUMAR.K.S., KALATHIL (HOUSE), KANNADI (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MANAGER, A.B.U.P.SCHOOL, KANNADI, KANNADI (PO), PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16885 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th June, 2008 JUDGMENT In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to the first respondent. Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was relieved from the first respondent School under Rule 49 of Order XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules and that she is entitled to preferential claim for appointment under Rule 51A of the said Chapter. The petitioner states that she was appointed as a Full-time Hindi Teacher in the first respondent School for the period from 2.7.2003 to 17.9.2003. The appointment was duly approved by the second respondent. It is stated that petitioner received salary for the period for which she worked. It is further stated that petitioner became qualified for being appointed as Sanskrit Teacher as she has passed the Sanskrit Teachers Examination held in 2004. A vacancy of Sanskrit Teacher arose in the first respondent School on the retirement of one Ramachandran on 31.3.2008. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in that post as she has a preferential claim for appointment. Ext.P6 representation was submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in that vacancy. W.P.(C) NO.16885 OF 2008 :: 2 :: The allegation of the petitioner is that the first respondent intents to fill up the vacancy by appointing some other person. Pointing out the grievance of the petitioner, she filed Ext.P7 representation before the second respondent, the Assistant Educational Officer. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(a) declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Sanskrit Teacher in the vacancy existing in the 1st respondent's school. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Sanskrit Teacher in the vacancy existing in his school. (c) direct the 2nd respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P7 representation without delay. (d) grant such other and further reliefs which are just and necessary.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, he is pressing only relief (c), reserving his right to claim the other reliefs at the appropriate stage. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Educational Officer has not disposed of Ext.P7. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the Assistant Educational Officer, Kuzhalmannam to dispose of Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as W.P.(C) NO.16885 OF 2008 :: 3 :: well as to the Manager of the School. Since no notice is issued to the Manager in this Writ Petition, the petitioner shall send a copy of this judgment by registered post to the first respondent Manager and shall produce proof of the same before the Assistant Educational Officer before he considers Ext.P7. The Assistant Educational Officer shall dispose of Ext.P7 within a period of two months. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/