IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35287 of 2010(I)
1. SHEELA E.A., L.P.S.A., AIDED LOWER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, AIDED LOWER PRIMARY
6. C.P.MINIKUMARI, L.P.S.A.,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
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.35287 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as L.P.S.A. in the
Aided Lower Primary School, Chuvannamannu, Thrissur
District. As per Ext.P7 staff fixation order for
2010-2011, the petitioner was held to be not
entitled to protection and she was retrenched from
service with effect from 15.7.2010. As per the
staff fixation order, the 6th respondent
C.P.Minikumary, P.K.Suja and Jeicy Varghese were
held eligible for protection as per G.O(P)
No.175/99/G.Edn. dtd.26.7.1999. Thereafter, the
Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P8 order
dated 4.11.2010, the operative portion of which
reads as follows:
“In the above circumstances taking into
account the 1:40 teacher student ratio in
terms of G.O(P)191/10/G.Edn. dated 22.9.2010
Smt.C.P.Minikumary the senior most protected
LPSA who is rendered surplus during the year
2010-11 allowed to retain in the school for
2010-2011 as per Endorsement letter No.B1-
W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 2
17215/10 dtd.18.10.2010 of Deputy Director of
Education, Thrissur.
The staff fixation order read (1) above
stands modified to this extend.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that Ext.P8 order was issued by the
Assistant Educational Officer, on the basis of G.O(P)
191/10/G.Edn. Dated 22.9.2010.
3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, calling
for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the
same to the extent it directs retrenchment of
the petitioner and further it allows the 6th
respondent to continue in the A.L.P.S.,
Chuvannamannu;
(ii) To declare that the petitioner who is
entitled for protection under Exts.P10 and P11
orders is eligible to continue in A.L.P.S.,
Chuvannamannu and the 6th respondent is claiming
the benefit of protection under Exts.P12 to P16
orders is liable to be deployed to a government
school;
(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
the respondents 1 to 5 to allow the petitioner
to continue as L.P.S.A in A.L.P.S, Chuvannamannu
in preference to the 6th respondent.
(iv) To issue an injunction restraining the
W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 3
respondents 4 & 5 from retrenching the
petitioner from A.L.P.S., Chuvannamannu on the
basis of Ext.P8 order: And
(v) To grant such other and further reliefs as are
just, proper and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
4. As against Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has an
alternative remedy of filing a revision before the
Director of Public Instruction under Rule 12E(3) of
Chapter XXIII KER. Against Ext.P7 staff fixation
order, the petitioner has a right to file a revision
before the Director of Public Instruction. Therefore,
the petitioner having effective alternative remedy, I
am of the view the Writ Petition need not be
entertained. The other reliefs prayed for in the Writ
Petition would become unnecessary if the revision
filed by the petitioner is decided in his favour. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Assistant Educational Officer passed Ext.P8 order, on
the basis of GO(Rt) No.4011/2010/G.Edn. dated
15.9.2010 (Ext.P9) and therefore, the petitioner has
filed this Writ Petition. It is submitted that if the
alternative remedy is availed, still, Ext.P9
W.P.(C).No.35287 OF 2010 4
Government Order would be put against the Petitioner.
Ext.P9 is not a general order but an order in the case
of a particular teacher. If the petitioner is
aggrieved by Ext.P9, nothing prevents her from taking
up the issue before the Government in the Revision
which she may file against Ext.P7 staff fixation
order. The petitioner can also insist the Revisional
power of the Government in accordance with in the
matter of Ext.P8 order. For that purpose, it is not
necessary to entertain this Writ Petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is
closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail
alternative remedy. If the petitioner files a
revision, needless to say that, it will be considered
expeditiously by the appropriate authority.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms