IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5963 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.NIRMALADEVI, HEADMISTRESS PROMOTEE AND WORKING AS TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, RAMAKRISHNA AUP SCHOOL, THATHRAMKAVILKUNNU, KONIKKAZHI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERPLACHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER, RAMAKRISHNA AUP SCHOOL, THATHRAMKAVILKUNNU, KONIKKAZHI P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SMT.P.SREEKUMARI, UPSA, RAMAKRISHNA AUP SCHOOL, THATHRAMKAVILKUNNU, KONIKKAZHI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R6 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R6 SMT.C.S.SHEEJA FOR R.5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5963/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.2110/93/GE DT 10.6.93 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT 1.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 6.8.2003 IN WA NO.2613/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER NO.B4.6910-06 DT 31.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 5.7.2005 IN WPC NO.20677/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DISG1/49725/07/DPI DT 6.9.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6.10.07. EXT.P8: COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.534/08/G.EDN. DT 29.1.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS.OF R6 EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.72/05/FIN DT 30.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.R6(b): TRTE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SLP NO.14855/1988 DT 21.2.1990 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXT.R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE MANAGER OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIA. EXT.R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER FORWARDED BY THE MANAGER TO THE AEO DATED 18.2.2008. EXT.R6(e): TRUE COPY OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2008(1) KLT 712. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5963 OF 2008 (I) ==================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as an UPSA from 20/8/90 and the 6th respondent from 1/6/88. The Headmaster of the school retired on 31/3/2005 and the petitioner was promoted to that post, by Ext.P2 order w.e.f. 01/04/2005. Approval was rejected by the 4th respondent and in the appeal that was filed, the DEO by Ext.P4 order directed that approval be granted. This order was challenged in revision by the 6th respondent before the DPI, who by Ext.P6 order disposed of the revision holding that the 6th respondent was entitled to be promoted. Petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Government by filing Ext.P7 and that was also rejected by Ext.P8. 2. Though the petitioner admits that the 6th respondent joined service earlier than her, the contention raised is that by Ext.P1, the 6th respondent had availed of leave without allowance for joining her spouse for the period 01/04/93 to 31/12/97. It is stated that in view of the condition in Ext.P1 that the period will not be reckoned for any service benefits including pension, the said period has to be eschewed and the WPC 5963/08 :2 : eligibility for promotion to the post of Headmaster has to be worked out on that basis. 3. However, the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the respondents contended to the contrary. According to them, the condition in Ext.P1 can deprive the person of promotional opportunities only during the currency of the leave and not beyond that. 4. In my view, the issue is covered against the petitioner by judgment of this court in Sreedevi Amma v. Radha Devi(2005(2) KLT 796) and the Apex Court Judgment in Mohammed Abdulla v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 712). Though the counsel for the petitioner contended that law to the contrary has been laid down by this Court in the decisions in Dr.Krishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (1988(2) KLT 106), Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 818) and Siva Prasad v. Public Service Commission(2007(4) KLT 1023) in view of the binding precedents, as available in the Apex Court judgment in Mohammed Abdulla v. State of Kerala(2008(1) KLT 712), I do not think it necessary for me to labour much on the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, Exts.P6 and P8 orders are consistent with the judgment of WPC 5963/08 :3 : this court in Sreedevi Amma v. Radha Devi (2005(2) KLT 796), which also has been confirmed in appeal and in SLP and also Mohammed Abdulla v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 712). If that be so, the writ petition merits only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp