IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25000 of 2008(A) PETITIONER: ------------ SHAJINA.T., AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.VINODAN, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, OORAPALLY L.P. SCHOOL, P.O.VENGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (P3) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, P.O.KANNUR, KANNUR-2. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR, P.O.MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, MANAGER, OORAPALLY L.P.SCHOOL, P.O.VENGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25000 OF 2008 A -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in Oorapally L.P.School, Kannur District with effect from 2.8.2005 to 1.8.2007, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment. In continuation of Ext.P1, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher for the period from 2.8.2007 to 29.2.2008. Ext.P1 order of appointment was sent for approval of the Assistant Educational Officer, who, as per Ext.P3 order dated 20.1.2006, declined approval on the ground that the fifth respondent was not competent to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff in the School without the consent of the other legal heirs constituting the educational agency. Challenging Ext.P3 order the Manager filed appeal before the Director of Public Instruction, which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 order dated 23.1.2008. The Director of Public Instruction took the view that the fifth respondent was approved as the Manager of the School as a consensus candidate by the co-owners of the School. It was held that the rejection of the approval on the ground that the petitioner was appointed by an incompetent Manager was accordingly held unsustainable. However, the Director of Public Instruction also declined approval on the ground that the Manager did not forward the papers within time and that no steps were taken by the Manager for getting the delay condoned in W.P.(C) NO. 25000 OF 2008 :: 2 :: submitting the proposal. Challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 Revision before the Government. Ext.P5 is pending disposal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P3 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer mentions in reference No.1 the letter dated 12.8.2005, sent by the Manager. The petitioner was appointed on 2.8.2005 and it is submitted that the proposal was forwarded within time. This is a matter to be considered while disposing of Ext.P5 Revision. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “a) call for the records relating to Exhibit P3 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order; b) call for the records relating to Exhibit P4 and quash the original of the same to the extent of baseless finding that the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner was not made in time by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order; c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner ; expeditiously; d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P5 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit; W.P.(C) NO. 25000 OF 2008 :: 3 :: e) pass such other order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 4. In view of the pendency of Ext.P5 Revision, it is only just and proper that only relief (d) be granted, for the time being. The petitioner confines her relief to relief (d). Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: a) The first respondent shall dispose of Ext.P5 Revision dated 27.6.2008, filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager. b) 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. c) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/