IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1824 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.RAGHAVAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, THEVARVATTOM P.O., POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJU MATHEW SRI.M.N.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, SAROVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, BRC ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1824 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent Director of Public Instruction to promote the petitioner as Headmaster from the date of junior to the petitioner was promoted. (b) to declare that Ext.P7 order issued by the second respondent is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to promotion in the light of Ext.P6 order. (c) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, to call for the service record of the petitioner. (d) to pass any other writ, or order or direction as is deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the greater interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner states that he entered service as High School Assistant in the Education Department on 6.9.1985. He is now working in the Government High School, Thevarvattom. On 27.5.2008, the Director of Public Instruction published Ext.P1 select list of High School Assistants for promotion to the category of Headmaster/Assistant Educational Officer. As per WPC No.1824 /2009 2 Ext.P1 select list, it is stated that 62 High School Assistants who are juniors to the petitioner, are included. Subsequently, on 18.7.2008, the Director of Public Instruction published a combined seniority list of High School Assistants approved by the Government for promotion to the category of Headmaster/Assistant Educational Officer. It is stated that in that list also, there are 77 persons, who are juniors to the petitioner. The Director of Public Instruction issued Ext.P3 order dated 25.8.2008 for transfer/promotion and postings of officers in the cadre of Heads of Departmental High Schools/Teacher Training Institutes/ Assistant Educational Officers and equated categories. The name of the petitioner is not included in Ext.P3. It is stated that the petitioner filed Ext.P4 complaint before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. He filed W.P.(C) No.30642/2008 which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 17th October 2008 directing the Director of Public Instruction to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the Director of Public Instruction conducted a hearing and passed Ext.P7 order dated 18.12.2008 WPC No.1824 /2009 3 rejecting the request of the petitioner. The reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner is that the confidential reports of the petitioner for the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2007 were not received by the department either in the General DPC held on 19.5.2008 or in the Adhoc DPC held on 9.7.2008. The request of the petitioner to include his name as a special case for promotion was declined by the Director of Public Instruction. 4. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.1.2009 (Ext.P9) to the first respondent voicing his grievance and challenging the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P9 is not disposed of. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 representation dated 16.1.2009 expeditiously. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P9, if received, would be disposed of without much delay. He submitted that at least four months' time is required for disposal of the representation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition WPC No.1824 /2009 4 is disposed of as follows: (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P9 representation dated 16.1.2009 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment, copy of the Writ Petition and copy of I.A.No.1653/09 before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl