IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 15154 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAICHAL THOMAS, (LPSA, ESM COLONY LPS,KULATHUPUZHA,) W/O. ACHANKUNJU.K, VALIYAVEEDU, ANDOOR PO, VALAKOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 4. MANAGER, ESM COLONY LPS, KULATHUPUZHA, SECRETARY, KULATHUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULATHUPUZHA , KOLLAM. 5. PREETHA KURIAN, LPSA, CHOZHIAKODU LPS CHOZHIAKODU P.O., KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. G.SYAMALADEVI, LPSA, CHOZHIAKODU LPS CHOZHIAKODE P.O, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJASENAN FOR R5 & 6 SRI. K.SIJU FOR R4 SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R4 SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI FOR R4 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI MUHAMOOD T.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.15154/2009-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The main prayer in the writ petition is to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to reassign the petitioner's seniority over respondent Nos.5 and 6 based on her merit in Ext.P3 ranked list. The petitioner has approached the Assistant Educational Officer by Ext.P7 representation in the matter. Notice on admission was ordered by this Court pursuant to which contesting respondents have appeared. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the claim raised by the petitioner. 2. The issue that is raised by the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 were appointed pursuant to a selection conducted for appointment to the post of L.P.S.A by holding written test and interview. According to the petitioner, she stood second in the ranked list, Ext.P2. The Manager appointed the petitioner and three others as per Ext.P3 order of appointment dated 09/07/1993. Going by Ext.P3, the candidates were directed to report before the Headmaster within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is the case of the petitioner that she received the order of appointment only on 11/07/1993 W.P.(C). No.15154/2009 -:2:- whereby she was able to join the school only on the next working day. The sixth respondent who was lower in the merit list received the appointment order on 09/07/1993 and joined the school on that day itself. Since the fifth and sixth respondents joined the school earlier than the petitioner, they are treated as senior than the petitioner. This is the core issue that is raised in this writ petition and in Ext.P7 representation. 3. The contesting respondents have raised a legal issue that the petitioner's claim is highly belated and therefore, the sit back theory will apply. It is pointed out that the said respondents have raised objections before the Manager and the Assistant Educational Officer in the matter. It is further pointed out that even though the seniority list is one which was adopted in the year 2001, only after 8 years, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. I am not entering any finding on the merits of the matter since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy before the concerned educational officer, namely, the third respondent by filing Ext.P7 representation. There will be a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. The respondents will be given adequate opportunity to file their W.P.(C). No.15154/2009 -:3:- objections individually or collectively in the matter. Appropriate orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms