IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31330 of 2010(M)
1. T.NICY BABY, W/O.ABHILASH P.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,
4. SMT.PRAJEESH, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.31330 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as LPSA in NLP
School, Manaly, Kechery, Thrissur District with
effect from 5.6.2002. The appointment was approved
by the Assistant Educational officer. It is stated
that from 2006-07 onwards, the petitioner was
accommodated against the anticipated additional
division vacancies. While so, C.Vijayakumari,
Headmistress of the School retired from service on
31.3.2010. The claim of the petitioner is that she
ought to have been adjusted against the said
vacancy from 1.6.2010 in the light of the
Government Order dated 9.11.1999 and the decision
in Geetha S. v. Jeo Thomas K and others (2009(4)
KHC 296). Though the petitioner requested the
Manager to appoint her against the vacancy from
1.6.2010, the Manager declined the request. On the
other hand, the Manager appointed the 4th
W.P.(C).No.31330 OF 2010 2
respondent, who according to the petitioner is a
fresh hand. Aggrieved by the appointment of the 4th
respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P7
representation before the Assistant Educational
Officer.
2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in
the Writ Petition are the following:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
commanding the 2nd respondent to approve the
appointment of the petitioner from 2006-07
onwards.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
commanding the 3rd respondent to accommodate
the petitioner as LPSA against the regular
vacancy arose from 1.6.2010.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
commanding the 2nd respondent to effectively
consider and pass appropriate orders upon
Exhibit P-7 after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner within a
time limit before granting approval to the
4th respondent.
iv) pass such other order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
to grant in the circumstances of the case”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that for the time being, it would be
W.P.(C).No.31330 OF 2010 3
sufficient, if the Assistant Educational Officer is
directed to consider Ext.P7 representation
submitted by the petitioner, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the
Manager and the 4th respondent.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
Assistant Educational Officer, Kunnamkulam to
consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation dated
24.9.2010 submitted by the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the
Manager and the 4th respondent. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified
copy of the judgment before the Assistant
Educational Officer.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms