IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11427 of 2009(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER A.U.P.SCHOOL, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.P.KRISHNA DAS S/O. K.R.PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 32 YEARS PEON, A.U.P. SCHOOL, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.V.A.MUHAMMED MR.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SMT. P.VIJAYAKUMARI CHALLIPARAMB PARUVASSERY,KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SR GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11427 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 7th April, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.A.j.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the fourth respondent. 2. The first petitioner is the Manager of an Aided Upper Primary School. The second petitioner is a Peon appointed by the first petitioner in his school in the vacancy that arose on 1.9.2008. Late P.Gopalan, the husband of the fourth respondent was a Drawing teacher in the first petitioner's school. He passed away on 4.6.2008. Thereupon, the fourth respondent's son Sri.Sruthin Gopan filed an application for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. That application was rejected by the Manager by Ext.P2 letter dated 1.9.2008 on the ground that he had not attained 18 years of age as on 1.9.2008. The vacancy of Peon was thereafter filled up by appointing the second petitioner. The petitioners state that the application submitted by Sri.Sruthin Gopan was accompanied by Ext.P5 consent letter submitted by the fourth respondent wherein she had WP(C).No.11427/2009 2 stated that she has no objection to her son being appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme. It appears, after the Manager declined the application submitted by the fourth respondent's son for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme, the fourth respondent staked a claim for the post of Peon before the Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur. The first petitioner's views were thereupon sought and she submitted Ext.P3 reply and a hearing in the matter was also held thereafter during which the first petitioner submitted Ext.P4 statement. By Ext.P6 order passed on 26.3.2009, the Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur declined to approve the second petitioner's appointment and directed the Manager to appoint the fourth respondent as Peon in the vacancy that arose on 1.9.2008. The first petitioner has, aggrieved by Ext.P6 order filed Ext.P7 appeal before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P6 and also seek a direction to the District Educational Officer, Palakkad to consider Ext.P7 appeal and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. The question whether Ext.P6 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer is sustainable in law or not is a matter for the District Educational Officer to decide in view of the fact that the first petitioner has chosen to move the said authority in appeal. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it will be premature for WP(C).No.11427/2009 3 this Court to finally pronounce on the issue. Since the first petitioner has already moved the District Educational Officer in appeal, it is for the said authority to consider the same and pass orders thereon. Since the claim of the fourth respondent relates to appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme and her husband passed away on 4.6.2008, it is only desirable that the appeal is disposed of expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the District Educational Officer, Palakkad to consider Ext.P7 appeal and pass orders thereon after notice to and affording the petitioners and the fourth respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within three months from the date on which the petitioners produce a copy of this writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. The District Educational Officer, Palakkad shall after final orders are passed in the matter, communicate the same to the petitioners and the fourth respondent. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS