IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24305 of 2006(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DINESH KUMAR K., H.S.A. (MAL.), MAMBARAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAMBARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. 3. MANAGER, MAMBARAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAMBARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MOHAMOOD, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24305/2006-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DEO, THALASSERY DT. 27/11/01. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DY. DIRECTOR OF EDN. KANNUR. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DEO DTD. 16/03/02. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REVISION BEFORE DPI DTD. 19/04/02. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY JOINT DIRECTOR DT. 03/10/02. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DT. 18/04/05. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO DTD. 25/03/06. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEO, THALASSERY DTD. 20/03/06. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REVISION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 22/06/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24305/2006 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as a HSA(Malayalam) in the school of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager, with effect from 12.7.2001. The DEO rejected approval by Ext.P1 on the ground that there was no sanctioned post and that the Manager had an obligation to appoint a protected teacher. The appeal filed was also rejected by the Deputy Director as per Ext.P2 order. 2. While matters stood as above, by Ext.P3 order, the number of posts of HSA(Malayalam) was reduced to 17. Against Ext.P2, Ext.P4 appeal filed to the DPI also was rejected by Ext.P5 on 30.10.2002 on the ground that there was no post. In fact it should be noticed that in the light of Ext.P3 dated 16.3.2002, the finding of the DPI in Ext.P5 that WP(c).No.24305/2006 2 there was no post at that point of time seems to be incorrect. 3. A revision filed against Ext.P5 was also rejected by Ext.P6. Petitioner submits that, subsequently by Ext.P7, the DEO, acting upon the Government order dated 1.2.2006, granted approval with effect from 1.2.2006 and on that basis the petitioner is continuing. It is stated that after the DEO passed Ext.P7, the DEO himself passed Ext.P8 order, revising the staff strength and sanctioning 18 posts of HSA (Malayalam) with effect from 2000-2001 onwards. In the light of Ext.P8, petitioner now submits that since he is continuing with effect from 27.11.2001, his appointment is liable to be approved with effect from the date of his entry into service and not from 1.2.2006 as ordered in Ext.P7. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also, the availability of post with effect from 2000-01 is admitted, as is seen from paragraph 5. Therefore the admitted position is that the petitioner is continuing in WP(c).No.24305/2006 3 service with effect from 27.11.2001 and a post is also available with effect from 2000-01 onwards. If that be so, there is no reason why the claim of the petitioner should not be reconsidered by the DEO himself, in the light of Ext.P8 order whereby he has sanctioned posts of HSAs with effect from 2000-01 onwards. It is directed that the DEO shall reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders. 5. In order to enable the DEO to reconsider and pass fresh orders in the matter, I quash Ext.P7 to the extent the approval is limited with effect from 1.2.2006. Orders shall be passed as above, with notice to the petitioner and the Manager as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE WP(c).No.24305/2006 4 vi.