IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5276 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ASGAR ALI KHAN.K.S/O.ALI,AGED 31 YEARS, ARABIC LANGUAGE TEACHER,ST.MARY'S A.U.P.SCHOOL, CHEENGERI, KUBLERI P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT DARUL HUDA, KUTTAMANGALAM,MANGAD P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SMT.SHEEJA K.U.W/O.TITUS,ASSISTANT TEACHER (U.P.S.A) ST.MARY'S A.U.P.SCHOOL CHEENGERI, KUMBLERI P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOLLAMKUDIYIL, KUMBLERI P.O. MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WAYANAD. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SULTAN BATHERY. 6. THE MANAGER, ST.MARY'S A.U.P.SCHOOL, CHEENGERI, KUMBLERI P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.5276 of 2009 -D --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are teachers working in the sixth respondent's school. The first petitioner is an Arabic Teacher and the second petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. 2. The first petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher by Exhibit P1 appointment order dated 15.1.2003. The Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve the said appointment by Exhibit P2 order passed on 15.3.2003. The Manager preferred an appeal before the District Educational Officer, who by Exhibit P4 order dated 21.5.2007 directed that the appointment can be approved with effect from 1.2.2006 in view of Exhibit P25 Government order, if the appointment is otherwise in order. Pursuant to Exhibit P4, the Assistant Educational Officer passed Exhibit P5 order on 8.6.2007 approving the first petitioner’s appointment with effect from 1.2.2006. In this writ petition, the first petitioner challenges Exhibit P2, P4 and P5 in so far as they limit the approval of his appointment effective from 1.2.2006. He also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to approve his appointment with W.P(C) No.5276 of 2009 -D 2 effect from 15.1.2003, the date on which he was appointed as Arabic Teacher. 3. The second petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by Exhibit P16 appointment order dated 21.6.2004. The Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve the appointment for various reasons. The Manager thereupon moved before the District Educational Officer who rejected the appeal by Exhibit P19 order passed on 19.3.2005. The Manager thereupon moved the Director of Public Instruction in revision. In the meanwhile Exhibit P25 Government Order was issued. The Director of Public Instruction therefore directed the Assistant Educational Officer to pass fresh orders on the proposal to approve the second petitioner's appointment in the light of Exhibit P25 Government Order. By Exhibit P22 order passed on 6.12.2006 the Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve the second petitioner’s appointment. On appeal filed by the Manager, the District Educational Officer approved her appointment with effect from 1.2.2006 by Exhibit P24 order passed on 5.5.2007. In this writ petition the second petitioner challenges Exhibits P17, P19, P20 and P24 and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to approve her appointment with effect from 21.6.2004, the date on which she was appointed. W.P(C) No.5276 of 2009 -D 3 4. On going through the writ petition and after hearing Shri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is regarding the date with effect from which their appointments have been approved. It is relying on Exhibit P25 Government order that the appointment of the petitioners was approved only with effect from 1.2.2006. Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P24 which are impugned in this writ petition are orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer, respectively. Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A of the KER empowers the Director of Public Instruction to revise orders relating to approval of appointments. Rule 8A thus enables the petitioner to move the Director of Public Instruction in revision. Instead the petitioners have directly approached this Court. In my opinion the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy which they have to invoke before moving this Court. Exhibit P5 which is the last of the orders relating to the first petitioner was passed on 8.6.2007 and Exhibit P24 which is the last of the orders regarding the second petitioner was passed on 5.5.2007. This writ petition is filed only on 17.2.2009. The petitioners have however not explained the long delay in filing this writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. W.P(C) No.5276 of 2009 -D 4 In these circumstances I dismiss the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move the Director of Public Instruction in revision under Rule 8A Chapter XIV A KER. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' contentions and that it will open to the Director of Public Instruction to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law, if moved by the petitioners. P.N.RAVINDRAN ab JUDGE