IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26953 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.LEELAMMA, HEADMISTRESS-IN-CHARGE, CHEMPAKASSERY TEACHERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE, BHOOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION),KOLLAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE JOINT MANAGERS CHEMPAKASSERY TEACHERS' TRAINING INSTITUTE, BHOOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 302. BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26953 of 2010(T) PETITIONR'S EXTS: P1:- COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.27.3.08 P2:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.7.7.08 P3:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.8.7.09 P4:-COPY OF ORDER DTD.31.12.09 P5:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.30.3.10 RRESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Headmistress-in- charge in Chempakassery Teachers' Training Institute, Bhoothakulam, Kollam District. She was appointed as Headmistress as per Ext.P1 order of appointment dated 27.3.2008. Ext.P1 order was signed by the joint managers. It would appear that there was management dispute. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that while making the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, both the rival claimants for managership put their signature in the appointment order. The proposal for approval of appointment was forwarded to the District Educational Officer, Kollam, who passed Ext.P2 order dated 7.7.2008, which reads as follows: “Due to the Management dispute in Chempakassery UPS, HSS and TTI, there is an administrative vacuums to proforma the daily routine work in Chempakassery TTI. The Senior Assistant of Chempakassery TTI as per the letter read above permission is accorded W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 2 to do the daily routine work of the school. As per the combined seniority list maintained under the management Smt.A.Leelamma is the senior most claimant to get appoint for the post of Headmistress in Chempakassery. Therefore, Smt.A.Leelamma, Senior Assistant is allowed to proforma the daily routine work in the school on provisional basis till the management dispute is over.” 2. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer passed an order dated 8.7.2009 (Ext.P3), rejecting the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress from 1.1.2009 onwards on the ground that the proposal was received in the office only on 28.1.2009, that is, beyond 15 days. The Joint Managers challenged Ext.P3 order in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who disposed of the appeal as per Ext.P4 order dated 31.12.2009, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “The remarks furnished by D.E.O.Kollam examined with arguments of the manager and convinced that the appointment was rejected only for the reason that the appointment order received the office of the D.E.O.Kollam delayed for 13 days. In normal cases the appointment order should received the office of the D.E.O. Kollam within 15 days from the date of appointment. In the recommended proforma submitted by the D.E.O.Kollam for condonation of delay W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 3 explains that one of the joint managers of the school was hospitalized due to illness at the time of appointment and hence he was not able to submit the appointment proposal within the time limit. As per Rule 8(1) Chapter XIV A KER, the Dy.Director (Education) is empowered with getting condoned delay up to 6 months. Hence, in this case delay involved in submitting the proposal to the D.E.O. Kollam is only 13 days which is within the statutory power of this authority. It is also convinced that the delay came about in submitting the proposal is not intentional. In the circumstances stated above, the request of the joint manager for condonation of delay in favour of Smt.A.Leelamma as H.M. is allowed in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 8(1) Chapter XIV A KER.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after Ext.P4 order dated 31.12.2009 was passed, the District Educational Officer has not passed any order for approval of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner points out that in the resultant vacancy on the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, one K.R.Gopakumar was appointed and that appointment was approved by the appellate order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, dated 30.3.2010 (Ext.P5). Still, the W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 4 District Educational Officer has not approved the appointment of the petitioner. 4. On behalf of the second respondent, a statement dated 14th October, 2010 is filed by K.G.Vijayakumar, P.A.to the District Educational Officer. The statement reads as follows: “The Writ Petitioner is the Headmistress in Charge of Chempakassery TTI, Bhoothakulam, Kollam. She is aggrieved since the appointment as Headmistress from 1.4.2008 was not been approved even though she is the senior most qualified Training School Teacher/H.S.A.for promotion of Headmistress. The appointment order issued to the petitioner by order No.JM/TTI/41/08 dated 27.3.2008, signed by joint Managers. Due to the management dispute in Chemapakassery Educational Agency, the District Educational Officer, Kollam has allowed the petitioner, the senior most teacher to perform the daily routine work in the School on provisional basis till the management dispute is settled, as per order No.B4/5037/08 dated 7.7.2008. After the settlement of management dispute the joint Managers appointed the petitioner as the Headmistress in Chempakassery TTI w.e.f. 1.1.2009. But the appointment was rejected by the D.E.O. on the ground that the proposal is belated. The joint Managers filed an Appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam. As per order No.B3/16570/09/K.Dis. dated 31.12.2009, the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam has allowed the condonation of delay. In the above order the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam has not W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 5 issued any direction to the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress. Hence a clarification has already been sought from the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam in the matter vide letter No.B4/600/10 dated 21.7.2010. This office is awaiting the clarification from the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam. In the above circumstances the Writ Petition may be disposed of.” 5. I am of the view that the District Educational Officer was not justified in not considering the proposal for approval of the petitioner as Headmistress. The District Educational Officer rejected the proposal only on the ground of delay. The Deputy Director, as per Ext.P4 order, has condoned the delay. The necessary consequence is that the District Educational Officer shall consider the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner on the merits. It is not necessary to get any clarification from the Deputy Director of Education as indicated in the statement. The Deputy Director of Education need not necessarily forward any clarification as well. W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 6 6. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following: “i). to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other order of direction, calling for the records up to Ext.P5 and quash Ext.P2 and Ext.P3. ii). to issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be approved as Headmistress w.e.f. 1.4.2008 in the Chempakassery TTI, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with penal interest at the rate of 12% P.A. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress in the Chempakassery TTI and to pay the consequential benefits including salary arrears from 1.4.2008 onwards and pay penal interest at the rate of 12% P.A. iv) to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 7.It is not necessary to grant reliefs (i) and (ii). Ext.P2 need not be quashed since the petitioner was allowed to continue to work as teacher-in-charge as per that order. As against Ext.P3, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Director of Education and that appeal was allowed as per Ext.P4. Therefore, Ext.P3 also need not be W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 7 quashed. The second relief cannot be granted in this Writ Petition, since the primary authority, namely, the District Educational Officer has to consider the question of approval. Relief No.(iii) is partly allowed and the District Educational Officer is directed to consider the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, with effect from 1.4.2008, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer. The petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment to respondent No.5 by registered post and she shall produce proof of the same before the District Educational Officer. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms