IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11565 of 2007(B)
1. MILCY K.P., UPSA,
... Petitioner
2. REMYA KURIAKOSE, HSA (ENGLISH),
3. JERIN JACOB P., HSA (S.S),
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,
4. DR.P.V.JOSEPH, XIX/256, PUKKUNEL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.11565/2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The dispute is presently confined to the validity of
Exts.P21 (c),(d) and (e) dated 22.12.2006 and Ext.R3(c)
dated 26.2.2007.
2. By Ext.P21(c),(d) and (e), concluding that the
performance of the petitioners are not up to the satisfaction
of the Manager, their appointment is stated to have been
withdrawn. Counsel for the 4th respondent, Manager
submits that the proceedings evidenced by Ext.P21(c),(d)
and (e) have already been withdrawn and that therefore
there is no necessity to adjudicate the validity of these
orders. In view of the submission made as above, it is
unnecessary to examine the merits of the contentions in so
far as these orders are concerned.
2
3. Next what arises for consideration is the validity of
Ext.R3(c). This order concerns the 3rd petitioner. When the
vacancy of a Headmaster arose in the school, Smt. K.A.
Sosama Varkey, HSA(Social Studies) was promoted and
appointed with effect from 1.6.2006 and according to the
3rd petitioner she was appointed in the consequential
vacancy of HSA(Social Studies). However, approval was
rejected by the DEO as per Ext.P9 order and the appeal filed
to the Deputy Director also was rejected. These orders were
called in question in WP(c).No.17244/07. That writ petition
was disposed of by this court directing the Deputy Director
to consider the claim of the 3rd petitioner for approval of
her appointment. It is stated that a 3rd party has filed
R.P.No.417/08 and the review petition has been admitted
and is pending.
A reading of Ext.R3(c) shows that the Manager has
issued the said order for the reason that the 3rd petitioner’s
approval of appointment was declined by the DEO by Ext.P9.
3
Therefore, the validity of Ext.R3(c) will depend upon the
outcome of the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9, the order
passed by the DEO, which is the issue arising in
RP.No.417/08 in WP(c).No.17244/2007.
Writ Petition is closed as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
4