IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32928 of 2010(M)
1. B.SYAMALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
... Respondent
1. STATE OF KERALA,
3. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
6. PUSHPALATHA M.N.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :26/11/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.32928 & 34999 OF 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
WP(C) No.32928 of 2010 is filed by B.Syamala,
while, WP(C) No.34999 of 2010 is filed by
Pushpalatha. Syamala and Pushpalatha are working
in S.N.M.V.H.S.S, Vannappuram.
2. Syamala was originally appointed on
2.6.1982. Pushpalatha was appointed on 29.7.1983.
However, Syamala was deployed on protection for the
period from 9.12.1988 to 4.3.1993. On 28.3.2008,
the District Educational Officer finalised the
seniority list, as per which Syamala was shown as
serial No.10 and Pushpalatha was shown as serial
No.6. Aggrieved by the seniority list finalised by
the District Educational Officer, Syamala filed an
appeal before the Director of Public Instruction,
who disposed the appeal as per the order dated
25.9.2010 (Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.32928 of 2010 and
W.P.(C).No.32928
& 34999 OF 2010 2
Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.34999 of 2010). The contention
put forward by Syamala that the period of
deployment also should be taken into account for
fixing the seniority was not accepted by the
Director of Public Instruction. Challenging the
order passed by the Director of Public Instruction,
Syamala filed a revision dated 11.10.2010 before
the Government (Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.32928 of 2010).
That revision is pending disposal.
3. Meanwhile, Rule 37 of Chapter XIV A was
amended as per SRO No.732/2010 which was published
as per GO(P) No.130/2010/G.Edn. dated 23.7.2010.
As per the amendment, a proviso was added to sub
rule 1 of rule 37 of Chapter XIV A KER. The proviso
is to the effect that the period of service
rendered in the parent school or in another school
by a teacher, who is relieved under Rule 52, shall
be reckoned for seniority on his re-appointment to
the parent school.
W.P.(C).No.32928 & 34999 OF 2010 3
4. Sri. M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for Syamala contended that the amendment
is declaratory in nature and therefore, it has
retrospective effect as well. Sri.V.A.Mohammed,
the learned counsel appearing for Pushpalatha
contended that the amendment is only prospective in
nature. It is also contended by Sri.Mohammed that
the post of Headmaster became vacant on 1.4.2010.
Only because there was a management dispute,
Pushpalatha was not appointed as Headmistress. Had
she been appointed as Headmistress on the date of
occurrence of vacancy, the amendment which came
into force on 23.7.2010, would not have affected
her. Only because of the fact that there was a
management dispute, the interpretation of law could
not be otherwise and the relevant date is the date
of occurrence of vacancy.
5. On the basis of the order passed by the
District Educational Officer, on 28.3.2008, and the
W.P.(C).No.32928
& 34999 OF 2010 4
order dated 25.9.2010 passed by the Director of
Public Instruction, Pushpalatha moved the
Government for implementing those orders (Ext.P8 in
WP(C) No.34999 of 2010). That representation is
also pending disposal before the Government. The
learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted
that since the matter is now pending before the
Government, it would be sufficient, if the
Government is directed to dispose of the revision
filed by Syamala and the representation filed by
Pushpalatha. It is also submitted that all the
questions raised by the parties may be left open to
be considered by the Government. Sri.Mohammed also
submitted that even going by the seniority list, it
can be seen that there are other affected parties,
who are not made parties in the Writ Petition filed
by Syamala. He submits that it is necessary that
those affected parties also should be heard by the
Government.
W.P.(C).No.32928
& 34999 OF 2010 5
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Writ Petitions are disposed of as follows:
The first respondent in the Writ Petitions
shall dispose of Ext.P5 revision dated 11.10.2010
filed by Syamala and Ext.P8 representation dated
30.7.2010 filed by Pushpalatha, as expeditiously as
possible, and at any rate within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to Syamala, Pushpalatha and all the other
affected parties. The Government shall take into
account all the contentions put forward by the
parties and take a final decision in the matter.
It is submitted that Pushpalatha is continuing
as Headmistress in charge, as per the orders passed
by the Educational authorities. Pending disposal
of the revision and the representation by the
Government as stated above, Pushpalatha shall
W.P.(C).No.32928
& 34999 OF 2010 6
continue as teacher in charge. The respective
petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ
Petition and certified copy of the judgment before
the first respondent.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms