IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4259 of 2010(F) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- K. SANTHA, NEEDLE WORK TEACHER, CHERUPURAM SOUTH M.L.P.SCHOOL, POOLKKOOL (PO).,VIA KAKKATIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIKASBHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECOTR OF EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATINO DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNUMMEL P.O., VATTOLI. 5. THE MANAGER, CHERUPURAM SOUTH M.L.P. SCHOOL, POOLKKOOL (PO), VIA KAKKATIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. THE MANAGER, CHERUPURAM NEW M.L.P. SCHOOL, POOLKKOOL (PO), VIA KAKKATIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 4259 of 2010(F) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SAID G.O.(RT) NO. 2419/2000/G.EDN DATED 14/6/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 248/01/2G.EDN DATED 18/1/01. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, KUNNUMMEL P.O. VATTOLI AS ORDER NO. DDIS 3417/2000 DATED 10/5/2001. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/2005. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/7/09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/5/2000 ISSUED BY THE HEAD MASTER CHERAPURAM SOUTH M.L.P SCHOOL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.4259 of 2010-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Asst. Educational Officer, which stands confirmed by the Government by Ext.P5 order. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Needle Work Teacher in the school managed by the fifth respondent. For want of sanction of the post, the approval was being delayed. Ultimately, after moving the Government Ext.P1 order was passed whereby a direction was issued to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Needle Work Teacher in Cherapuram S.K.L.P. School under clubbing arrangement with Cherapuram New.L.P. School with effect from 11.8.1983 onwards subject to the condition that the above co-terminate with the vacation of the post by the above incumbent by resignation, retirement, death or like reasons, if it is otherwise in order. 3. But when the Assistant Educational Officer passed consequential orders, the approval is granted only from the date of the Government Order. The reasoning adopted by the Assistant Educational Officer is that there WPC 4259/2010 2 were some spells on different occasions during which the petitioner was absent in the school. Ultimately, the matter reached the Government when the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order. The same was replied by the Government by Ext.P5 letter. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 was communicated without hearing the petitioner and if an opportunity was given, the petitioner would have been able to satisfy the Government that the order Ext.P3 passed by the Asst. Educational Officer cannot be legally passed. 4. Heard learned Govt. Pleader who supported the passing of Ext.P5. 5. Going by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was given the benefit of approval from the year 1983. The sole question is whether the Asst. Educational Officer was right in restricting the approval from the date of the Government Order. True that the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer will adversely affect the petitioner. The petitioner had actually approached the Government by Ext.P4, giving all details and circumstances which resulted in the alleged absence from duty due to non marking of attendance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been attending the school. I am not going into the merits of the contentions of the parties. Since the order Ext.P5 is passed without hearing the petitioner, it is only proper that the petitioner is furnished an WPC 4259/2010 3 opportunity for personal hearing. 6. Therefore, Ext.P5 is quashed only to the above extent. The Government will afford a hearing to the petitioner as well as the Manager of the school and appropriate orders will be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/