IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36478 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANKAJAM.V., URDU TEACHER, CHERAPURAM UP SCHOOL, CHERAPURAM, VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE 673 301. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VATAKARA 673 101. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNUMMAL, VATAKARA 673 101. 5. THE MANAGER, CHERAPURAM UP SCHOOL, CHERAPURAM, VATAKARA 673 101. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36478 of 2010 H ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is the following : The petitioner was appointed as Full Time Urdu Teacher in Cherapuram U.P.School, Vatakara, in a leave vacancy for the period from 20.8.1982 to 22.10.1982. That appointment was approved. Thus the petitioner became a claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER. Recognising that claim, the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Urdu Teacher from 4.6.2007 onwards in a regular vacancy. As per the Staff Fixation Order for the academic year 2007-2008, one post of Full Time Urdu Teacher was sanctioned. However, the Assistant Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as per Exhibit P3 order dated 24.12.2007. Challenging Exhibit P3 order, the Manager filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer allowed the appeal as per Exhibit P4 order dated 15.4.2008, on finding that the full time post WPC No.36478/2010 2 was sanctioned in the Staff Fixation Order and on further ground that the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant. It is stated that Exhibit P4 order has become final. Similarly, Exhibit P2 Staff Fixation Order for the year 2007-2008 has also become final. In 2008-2009 also, a full time post of Urdu teacher was sanctioned as per Exhibit P5 Staff Fixation Order. 2. It would appear that the Deputy Director of Education raised objection against the sanctioning of Full Time Urdu Teacher post, on scrutiny of the Staff Fixation Order. Accordingly, the Deputy Director issued Exhibit P6 notice dated 19.5.2009 to the Headmaster. It is stated that the parties were heard, but no orders were passed. 3. As per Exhibit P7 Staff Fixation Order for the academic year 2009-2010, only a part time post of Urdu Teacher was sanctioned. Aggrieved by Exhibit P7 Staff Fixation Order, the petitioner filed Exhibit P8 revision before the first respondent. Exhibit P8 revision is pending disposal. WPC No.36478/2010 3 4. While so, the Assistant Educational Officer conducted a hearing in the Adalath in respect of the objections raised by the Deputy Director of Education. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Education issued Exhibit P10 proceedings dated 7.10.2010 holding that the District Educational Officer would be liable for the excess salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 4.6.2007 to 29.8.2009. It is also stated in Exhibit P10 that the salary paid to the teacher after 30.8.2009 in excess of the salary of a Part Time Urdu Teacher would be the liability of the Assistant Educational Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not very much aggrieved by Exhibit P10. However, Exhibit P12 communication dated 11.11.2010 was issued by the Assistant Educational Officer to the Headmaster stating that the petitioner is liable to repay the excess salary drawn by her. The Headmaster was directed to file a statement regarding the excess salary drawn by the petitioner. Exhibit P12 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the WPC No.36478/2010 4 following : “(a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P12 communication of the fourth respondent dated 11.11.2010 and also Exhibit P10 order of the second respondent dated 7.10.2010 to the extent of affecting the rights of the petitioner. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P8 revision after hearing the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the fourth respondent to disburse the salary and other benefits to the petitioner as part time Urdu teacher till Exhibit P8 revision is heard and disposed by the first respondent. WPC No.36478/2010 5 (d) issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no justification for the Deputy Director to interfere with the Staff Fixation Order which had become final and to recover the salary paid to the petitioner on the basis of the approved service of the petitioner. Approval of appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Urdu Teacher was approved by the District Educational Officer and that order has become final. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Staff Fixation Order for 2009-2010 and therefore, she has filed Exhibit P8 revision before the first respondent. Pending disposal of Exhibit P8 revision, it is submitted that, there was no justification for passing Exhibits P10 and P12 orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it would be only just and proper to keep in abeyance the proceedings for recovery of the alleged excess salary from the petitioner, pending disposal of Exhibit P8 revision. As against Exhibit P12, the petitioner has effective alternative remedy WPC No.36478/2010 6 before the higher authority. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the legality or otherwise of Exhibit P12 in this Writ Petition. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows : (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Exhibit P8 revision filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three 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) If the petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P12 or Exhibits P10 and P12, she would be entitled to file a revision before the first respondent. If the petitioner files a revision within one month from today, that revision shall also be considered in accordance with Exhibit P8 revision by the first respondent. WPC No.36478/2010 7 (iii) Till the disposal of the matter by the first respondent as mentioned above, all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P12 shall be kept in abeyance. (iv) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (v) The petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment to the fifth respondent Manager by registered post and the petitioner shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl