IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2093 of 2009(Y)
1. P.P.LEELA, MANAGER,
... Petitioner
2. P.K.ROOPESH, H.S.A.(ENGLISH),
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. K.P.JYOTHI,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/02/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
======================================
W.P.(C)No.2093 of 2009
======================================
Dated this the 19th day of February 2009
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is the Manager of the Parassinikkadavu
High School, a recognized aided school, governed by the
provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala
Education Rules. The second petitioner is a teacher appointed by
the first petitioner.
2. The Parassinikkadavu High School is run by the
Parassinikkadavu High School Society. The first petitioner was
elected as the Manager of the school in the meeting of the
members of the Parassinikkadavu High School Society held on
23.4.2006. Her appointment as Manager was approved by the
District Educational Officer, Kannur only by Ext.P3 order dated
31.7.2008, with effect from 23.4.2006. In the meanwhile,
Sri.P.P.Venugopalan, the former Manager of the school appointed
the fifth respondent, who is admittedly a Rule 51A claimant as
High School Assistant (Physical Science) as per Ext.P14 order
dated 13.6.2008. It was shortly thereafter that the District
Educational Officer, Kannur issued Ext.P3 order approving the first
petitioner as the Manager of the school and Ext.P5 staff fixation
order for the academic year 2008-2009. Though in Ext.P5 staff
fixation order, the District Educational Officer, Kannur had
sanctioned two posts of High School Assistant (English), taking
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 2
note of the fact that there was only one incumbent holding the
post of High School Assistant (English), he directed that
Sri.P.P.Dinesan, High School Assistant (Mathematics) found to be
in excess, shall be adjusted against the second post of High
School Assistant (English). In other words, Sri.P.P.Dinesan, High
School Assistant (Mathematics) was allowed to continue in the
school by adjusting the excess post of High School Assistant
(Mathematics) against the second post of High School Assistant
(English) which was then lying vacant.
3. After Ext.P3 order was passed, the first petitioner filed
Ext.P6 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur
challenging Ext.P5 staff fixation order to the extent it ordered
retention of Sri.P.P.Dinesan, High School Assistant (Mathematics)
by accommodating him against the vacant post of High School
Assistant (English). In Ext.P6 appeal, the first petitioner contended
that as the sanctioned post is that of High School Assistant
(English), the High School Assistant (Mathematics) found in excess
cannot be accommodated against the said vacancy. Shortly
thereafter he issued Ext.P7 order dated 24.9.2008 appointing the
second petitioner as High School Assistant (English). The first
petitioner thereafter issued Ext.P9 notice dated 24.11.2008 to the
fifth respondent informing her that her appointment as High
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 3
School Assistant (Physical Science) by Sri.P.P.Venugopalan, the
former Manager after 23.4.2006, is unathorised, that there is no
sanctioned post to accommodate her as High School Assistant
(Physical Science) and that in order to satisfy the subject
requirement, appointment has to be made to the post of High
School Assistant (English). She was also called upon to show cause
why her services should not be terminated with effect from
13.6.2008, the date on which Ext.P14 appointment order was
issued by Sri.P.P.Venugopalan, the former Manager. The fifth
respondent submitted Ext.P10 reply dated 28.11.2008. The first
petitioner thereafter passed Ext.P11 order dated 4.12.2008
terminating the fifth respondent’s service.
4. Shortly thereafter, the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur
rejected Ext.P6 appeal filed by the first petitioner by Ext.P8 order
passed on 23.12.2008. The District Educational Officer, Kannur
thereafter passed orders on 5.1.2009 approving the appointment
of the fifth respondent as High School Assistant (Physical
Science). By Ext.P17 order passed on 6.1.2009, the District
Educational Officer, Kannur also declined to approve the second
petitioner’s appointment as High School Assistant (English). The
first petitioner has aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the
Deputy Director of Education, Kannur by which Ext.P5 staff
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 4
fixation order was upheld, filed Ext.P12 revision petition before
the Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P13 revision petition
before the Government both on the same day, viz.17.1.2009. She
has aggrieved by Ext.P17 order passed by the District Educational
Officer declining to approve the second petitioner’s appointment
as High School Assistant (English) filed Ext.P18 appeal and
Ext.P19 revision petition before the Deputy Director of Education,
Kannur and the State Government respectively on 17.1.2009. The
first petitioner has, aggrieved by the order passed by the District
Educational officer approving the fifth respondent’s appointment,
filed Ext.P15 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education,
Kannur and Ext.P16 revision petition before the State
Government, both on 17.1.2009. In this Writ Petition, the
petitioners challenge the orders passed by the educational
authorities adverse to their interests and also seek other reliefs.
5. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 21.1.2009,
this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents, in
order to ascertain whether to avoid delay and to prevent
conflicting decisions being passed, the appeals and revisions
pending before the various authorities can be consolidated and
disposed of by one authority. When the Writ petition was heard
today, the learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 5
the revision petitions and appeals pending before the various
authorities can be consolidated and heard and disposed of either
by the Director of Public Instruction or the State Government.
6. On going through the pleadings, I notice that challenging
Ext.P8 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur
the first petitioner has filed Ext.P12 revision petition before the
Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P13 revision petition before
the Government. Likewise, challenging Ext.P17 order passed by
the District Educational Officer declining to approve the second
petitioner’s appointment, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P18
appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and
Ext.P19 revision before the State Government. Likewise,
challenging the approval given to the fifth respondent’s
appointment, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P15 appeal before
the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and Ext.P16 revision
petition before the State Government. As per Rule 8A of Chapter
XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules, orders relating to approval of
appointment are revisable by the Director of Public Instruction.
The dispute arising out of the approval of the fifth respondent’s
appointment and the rejection of the second petitioner’s
appointment can therefore be resolved by the Director of Public
Instruction exercising the power conferred on him under Rule 8A
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 6
of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. As regards the
challenge to Ext.P8, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P12 revision
petition before the Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P13
revision petition before the State Government. Rule 12E(3) of
Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules empowers the Director
of Public Instruction to entertain and dispose of revision petitions
arising out of staff fixation orders. In these circumstances, I am of
the considered opinion that the Director of Public Instruction can
be directed to entertain and dispose of Exts.P15 and 18 appeals
along with Ext.P12 revision petition. I accordingly dispose of this
Writ Petition with the following directions:
a) The Director of Public Instruction shall hear and dispose of
Ext.P12 revision petition arising out of Ext.P5 staff fixation order
passed by the District Educational Officer, Kannur and Ext.P8
appellate order passed by the Deputy Director of Education,
Kannur. This shall be done within four months from the date on
which the first petitioner produces a certified copy of this
judgment before the Director of Public Instruction.
b) The Deputy Director of Education, Kannur shall make over
Ext.P15 appeal filed by the first respondent from the order passed
by the District Educational Officer on 5.1.2009 approving the
appointment of the fifth respondent as High School Assistant
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 7
(Physical Science). This shall be done within one month from
today. The Director of Public Instruction shall, on receipt of the
same, entertain it as a revision petition filed under Rule 8A of
Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and dispose of the
same within the time limit of four months stipulated above.
c) The Deputy Director of Education, Kannur shall likewise,
make over Ext.P18 appeal filed by the first petitioner from Ext.P17
order passed by the District Educational Officer, Kannur declining
to approve the second petitioner’s appointment as High School
Assistant (English). The Director of Public Instruction shall, on
receipt of the same entertain it as a revision petition filed under
Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules and
dispose of the same within the time limit of four months
stipulated above.
d) The Director of Public Instruction shall issue notice to the
petitioners, the fifth respondent and Sri.P.P.Dinesan (High School
Assistant (Mathematics) and afford them a reasonable opportunity
of being heard before orders are passed in the matter. The
Director of Public Instruction shall also endeavour to hear all the
revision petitions on the same day and pass a common order
giving reasons.
e) Exts.P13, 16 and 19 revision petitions filed by the first
W.P.(C)No.2093/2009 8
petitioner before the State Government shall stand struck off and
the Government need not pass orders thereon.
f) It will be open to the parties who are aggrieved by the order
passed by the Director of Public Instruction to move the State
Government in revision invoking Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the
Kerala Education Rules.
g) It is clarified that though the first petitioner has passed
Ext.P11 order on 4.12.2008 terminating the services of the fifth
respondent, the fifth respondent need not challenge it separately
for the reason that her appointment has been approved by the
District Educational Officer, Kannur. The fifth respondent’s right
to continue in service would depend on the orders to be passed
by the Director of Public Instruction, as directed above or the
orders if any, passed thereafter by the State Government or by
this Court, if moved by the parties.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/