IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 1897 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23663/2010 Dated 13/10/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4 --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI. V.ANIRUDHAN, GOVT. DEPUTY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 3 IN THE WPC --------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY MERCY P.J., ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM. (NOW UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), PIN-682 508. 2. THE MANAGER, ST.MARY'S U.P.SCHOOL, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682 509. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R2 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1 SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO.1898 OF 2010, WA NO.1917 OF 2010 & WA NO. 1902 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal Nos.1897, 1898, 1917 & 1902 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeals are filed by the Government challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing four writ petitions filed by the employees in the Education Department namely, one L.D. Clerk, one U.D. Clerk, one Junior Superintendent and an Assistant Education Officer. The allegations are that these persons helped one Smt.K.A.Mary to get approval for appointment as Headmistress and the A.E.O. approved the same. According to the Government, the claim of another teacher namely, Smt.K.K.Lalitha was ignored by the respondents. However, the case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that all what they have done was to implement judgment of this court by which the entitlement of Smt.K.A.Mary to become Headmistress was approved. However, since Smt.K.K.Lalitha filed Writ Appeal against the judgment, all subsequent approvals of appointment of Headmaster/Headmistress were made subject to the result of Writ Appeal. When the matter was under consideration of this W.A. 1897/2010 & conn. 2 court in a Writ Appeal, it was for the aggrieved person to bring to the notice of this court whatever is the irregularity done by the departmental officials to help the rival claimants to get the post. However, this court compelled enforcement of judgment of the learned Single Judge by making it clear that appointment of Smt.K.A.Mary as Headmistress will be subject to result of Writ Appeal. In fact, after retirement of Smt.K.A.Mary, though several persons were appointed one after another as Headmaster/Headmistress in the post claimed by Smt.K.K.Lalitha who was still in service, she does not appear to have challenged approval of appointments of any of those Headmasters/Headmistresses. Therefore, we feel the learned Single Judge rightly concluded that there was no justification to suspend the respondents who even have a case that they were not in the office of the A.E.O. as on the date of impugned action taken in favour of the beneficiaries who are the Headmasters or Headmistresses of the school. We notice that all what the learned Single Judge said is that there is no justification for the suspension of the respondents and the appellants were not interdicted from holding any enquiry against them in accordance with law keeping them in service during the period of enquiry. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeals by upholding the W.A. 1897/2010 & conn. 3 judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent of cancellation of suspension. If there is any case for enquiry against any of the respondents, it is for the appellants to consider the same and institute proper enquiry. However, we are sure appellants will take into account the findings of the learned Single Judge and the claim of the respondents so that the respondents are not subject to unnecessary harassment in enquiry. In other words, unless there is justification, no enquiry should be instituted against respondents whose case is that they were only implementing court orders which again is subject to final result of a Writ Appeal that was pending in this court. Since we have not considered the merits of the case or justification, if any, for instituting enquiry against respondents, it is for the respondents to challenge enquiry proceedings, if initiated, if there is any ground for the same. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms