IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9150 of 2010(P)
1. K.S.VIJAYALAKSHMI, H.S.A.(HINDI)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, MULAMANA HIGH SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/09/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.9150 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Hindi) for the period
from 14.6.2004 to 30.9.2004 in the leave vacancy of Remadevi
Amma, HSA (Hindi). The District Educational Officer rejected
the proposal for approval of appointment. The appeals preferred
by the Manager were dismissed by the Deputy Director of
Education and the Director of Public Instruction and also by the
Government. Remadevi extended her leave up to 30.10.2004
and she applied for voluntary retirement with effect from
1.11.2004. The voluntary retirement was sanctioned and thus
there arose a permanent vacancy of HSA (Hindi) in the school
with effect from 1.11.2004.
2. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.34234 of 2006 which was disposed of on 21.12.2006
directing the Government take a decision in the matter
and to grant the benefit of G.O.(P) No.46/06/G.Edn. dated
1.2.2006. The Government passed G.O.(Rt.)No.
W.P.(C) No.9150 of 2010 2
2199/2007/G.Edn. dated 21.5.2007 and rejected the
representation submitted by the petitioner. It would appear that
the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.24561 of 2007 challenging the
order passed by the Government. The petitioner submitted
another representation dated 15.1.2009 before the Government.
That representation was considered by the Government and it
was disposed of as per G.O.(Rt) No.3426/2009/G. Edn. dated
12.8.2009 rejecting the request made by the petitioner to
approve the appointment. The approval was rejected on the
ground that the Manager did not appoint a protected teacher,
the school being a newly opened/upgraded school.
3. W.P.(C) No.24561 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was
disposed of along with W.P.(C) Nos.22114 of 2009 filed by the
Manager and 24599 of 2007 filed by one Jimmishan. The
Government Order dated 12.8.2009, which is challenged in this
Writ Petition marking the same as Ext.P8, was produced as
Ext.R1(a) in the three Writ Petitions mentioned earlier. After
considering all the aspects, this Court directed the Government
to consider the matter afresh in the light of certain other
Government Orders.
W.P.(C) No.9150 of 2010 3
4. In view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2007
directing the Government to consider the entire issue, it is only
proper that the said direction is implemented. Ext. P8 order
passed by the Government subsequent to the order impugned in
W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2007 should not stand in the way of the
Government disposing of the matter afresh in the light of the
directions contained in the judgment dated 5th August, 2010 in
W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2007. To that extent, it is made clear that
Ext.P8 order dated 12.8.2009 need not be considered as a bar
for the Government in considering the entire issue afresh.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl