IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20992 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- JYOTHI.R., W/O.SIVAPRASAD.B., AGED 38, KALIYIKKAL HOUSE, ERUVA EAST P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 3. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. 4. THE MANAGER, S.K.V.HIGH SCHOOL, PATHIYOOR, ERUVA EAST P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 11th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent, Manager. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is working as HSA (Malayalam) in the fourth respondent's school. She was appointed in a leave vacancy earlier and on the basis of preferential claim, the petitioner was appointed in a regular vacancy with effect from 07.06.2000. By Ext. P4 order dated 18.11.2000, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara It was also mentioned in Ext.P4 order that the said order is subject to the result of W.A. 897 of 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.A. 897 of 2000 relates to some management disputes and that it has nothing to do with the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that on 28.03.2008, the petitioner exercised her option for Higher Grade . Ext. P5 is the form of option for Higher Grade. On receipt of Ext.P5, the third respondent issued Ext. P6 communication stating that the petitioner has approved service with effect from 20.11.2000. The said communication reads as follows: “The teacher has approved service w.e.f. 20.11.2000 vide Order No.B4-5758/00/K.Dis dtd.23.12.00 of the DEO. As such the period reckoned w.e.f. 7.6.2000 to 19.11.00 is not admissible for W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008 2 grade or other service benefits. As such her grade will due only on 20.6.2008.” It is submitted that the order approving appointment of the petitioner is Ext.P4 and it is dated 18.11.2000. Therefore, what is noted in Ext. P6 communication that the order of approval is dated 23.12.2000 is not correct, submits the learned counsel. It is also submitted that Ext.P4 order itself makes it clear that the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 07.06.2000 and therefore the third respondent was not justified in stating in Ext. P6 that the petitioner has approved service only with effect from 20.11.2000. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 12.06.2008 to the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara pointing out these facts and requesting to pass orders directing disbursement of salary for the period from 07.06.2000 to 19.11.2000 and also to reckon the aforesaid period for the purpose of grade promotion as well as other service benefits. Ext.P7 representation is pending before the District Educational Officer. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to pass orders forthwith to consider the period from 7.6.2000 to 19.11.2000 for the grant of higher grade to the petitioner. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to forthwith disburse the salary to the petitioner for the period from 7.6.2000 to 19.11.2000. iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008 3 representation within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. v) Declare that the petitioner is entitled for benefits of grade as salary with effect from 7.6.2000. vi) Issue such other writ, appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the District Educational Officer to dispose of Ext. P7 representation dated 12.06.2008 within a time frame, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The submission is just and reasonable. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not stated when her probation was declared and that, that date is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. This is also a matter to be considered by the District Educational Officer while disposing of the Ext.P7 representation. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: i) The District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara shall dispose of Ext. P7 representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager. ii) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the District Educational Officer. iii) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment by registered post to the W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008 4 fourth respondent (Manager) and shall produce proof of the same before the District Educational Officer. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk