IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21758 of 2007(M)
1. V.SHEEBA, U.P.S.A., SIVAGIRI HIGHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL.
4. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :07/08/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 21758 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is stated to be working as Upper Primary School Assiostant
(Natural Science) in Sivagiri Higher Secondary School at Varkala, which is
an aided institution under the management of respondent No.4.
2. According to the petitioner, she had worked in two short spells
between October 1, 1991 to December 4, 1991 and from December 6, 1991
to March 9, 1992, before she was appointed against a regular vacancy of
U.P.S.A with effect from June 1, 1992.
3. It appears that during the academic year 1996-97 one post of
U.P.S.A. was reduced due to fall in student strength. It is contended by the
petitioner that she was not paid salary for the period from April 1, 1997 to
July 14, 1997. She contends that teachers who were similarly situated like
the petitioner and some of her juniors working in other schools under the
same management in Kottayam district, were given salary for the same
period in spite of the fact that there was division fall in those schools as
well. According to her, she is entitled to get a similar treatment since she
had been working in the school from October 1, 1991.
4. I am afraid the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be
WPC NO.21758/07 Page numbers
entertained or considered at this distance of time particularly since
petitioner was entitled to challenge the order, if any, that was passed by the
departmental authority at the relevant point of time. It is contended on
behalf of the petitioner that she had submitted Ext.P2 representation before
respondent No.2 in February 2003 in this regard. The limited prayer made
in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider
Exts. P1 and P2.
I am not satisfied that the above prayer should be allowed. I do not
propose to make any further observation on the merit of the contentions
raised by the petitioner at this stage. However, I make it clear that it will be
open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy, if any, available to her under
law.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.21758/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
JUDGMENT
WPC NO.21758/07 Page numbers
1ST MARCH, 2007