IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27335 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SHEEJA.T., L.P.S.A., LITTLE FLOWER U.P.SCHOOL, MATTOOL, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MADAYI. 6. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, KANNUR DIOCESE OUR LADY OF SORROWS CHURCH, KANNUR - 670 501. 7. SR.AGNES, ASSISTANT TEACHER, ST.JUDE'S L.P.SCHOOL, CHEMBENCHERRY P.O. VELLARIKUNDU BALAL, KASARAGOD DIST. 8. MARYKUTTY, LPSA, LITTLE FLOWER U.P.SCHOOL, MATTOOL, P.O.MATTOOL, KANNUR DIST. 9. MINI THOMAS, LPSA, ZUHARA'S U.P.SCHOOL, VELLARIVAYAL, IRITTY, KANNUR DIST. 10. JASMINE THOMAS, UPSA, ST.PAUL'S U.P.SCHOOL TRIKKARIPUR, KASARAGOD DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27335/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner contends that by Ext.P1, she was appointed as LPSA in a leave vacancy under the 6th respondent. It is stated that recognizing her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A KER, she was again offered provisional appointment by Exts.P2,P3 and P4. It is also stated that subsequently, by Ext.P5 order dated 5.6.2006, she was given regular appointment. It is stated that, on receipt of Ext.P7, petitioner came to know that respondents 7 to 9, who have commenced service subsequent to her were given regular appointments earlier than the petitioner. There upon, the petitioner submits that, she has filed Ext.P8 representation to the 5th respondent. Thereafter this writ petition has been WP(c).No.27335/2008 2 filed praying for quashing Ext.P7 and to declare that the petitioner is senior to respondents 7 to 9. 2. Recognizing their claim under Rule 51A of the Chapter XIV-A, as can be seen from paragraph 3 of the writ petition, respondents 7 to 9 were appointed on regular basis with effect from 6.8.2004, 1.10.2004 and 15.12.2004. According to the petitioner it is only after receipt of Ext.P6 order that she came to know of it and raised a grievance about the earlier appointment of the aforesaid respondents. As already noticed, all these appointments were made under the 3rd respondent management where the petitioner is also employed. Therefore I am not prepared to believe the version of the petitioner that only through Ext.P6 that the petitioner came to know of the earlier appointments of respondents 7 to 9. This contention in my view now raised only to get over WP(c).No.27335/2008 3 the delay in raising challenge against the appointment of respondents 7 to 9. 3. In my view the challenge now raised against the appearance of respondents 7 to 9, made as early as in 2004 is highly belated and on that ground the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. However, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking statutory remedies before the appropriate authorities. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.27335/2008 4