IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2807 of 2009(H)
1. THE MANAGER, K.S.B SCHOOL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 2807 OF 2009 H
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Manager of K.S.B.School, Karippode in
Palakkad District. It is stated that two regular vacancies arose in the post
of UPSA and Full Time Urdu Teacher in the School on 1.4.2008 and
31.5.2008 respectively. The petitioner appointed Smt.Sona C.S. as
UPSA, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment, and Smt.Habeeba.T. as Full
Time Urdu Teacher, as per Ext.P1(a) order of appointment. The
proposals for approval of appointments of the aforesaid teachers were
rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Exts.P4 and P4(a)
orders dated 17.9.2008. One of the reasons for rejection is that the
validity of the staff fixation order 2008-2009 depends on the judgment in
W.P.(C) No,15379 of 2008. Other technical objections were also raised.
Challenging Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 and
P5(a) appeals before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. Exts.P5
and P5(a) appeals are pending consideration.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason
stated for rejection of the proposals for approval of the appointments that
the staff fixation order 2008-2009 depends on the judgment in W.P.(C)
W.P.(C) NO.2807 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
No.15379 of 2008 is absolutely unsustainable. W.P.(C) No.15379 of
2008 was filed by the Managers of several schools including the petitioner
challenging the circulars issued by the Government and the circular
issued by the Director of Public Instruction, directing demolition of the pre
KER buildings. The Writ Petition, namely, W.P.(C) NO.15379 of 2008,
was admitted and Ext.P2 interim order was granted, which was later
extended until further orders, as per Ext.P3 order. The pendency of W.P.
(C) No.15379 of 2008 should not be a ground for rejection of the
proposals for approval of the appointments. I am of the view that the said
reason mentioned in Exts.P4 and P4(a) is improper. Still there are other
reasons for rejection in Exts.P4 and P4(a), which are to be considered in
Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals.
3. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are
the following:
“(i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the
order at Ext.P4 and P4(a) of the 3rd respondent to the
extent it refuses approval to appointments made by
the Manager against regular vacancies;
(ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd
respondent to approve the appointment made as per
Ext.P1 and P1(a);
(iii) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd
respondent to consider the appeal at Ext.P5 and P5
(a) and pass orders within a period of 7 days;
W.P.(C) NO.2807 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
(iv) Declare that the appointment made against regular
vacancies at Ext.P1 and P1(a) are entitled to be
approved by the 3rd respondent as the
Circulars/orders seeking to demolish the pre KER
school buildings are stood stayed by this Hon’ble
Court;
(v) Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction
as deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court on
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present,
the petitioner confines his relief to relief (iii). Learned Government
Pleader submits that Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals would be disposed of by
the District Educational Officer without delay.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is
disposed of as above:
a) The District Educational Officer shall consider and dispose of
Exts.P5 and P5(a) appeals filed by the petitioner challenging
Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders passed by the Assistant Educational
Officer, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
W.P.(C) NO.2807 OF 2009
:: 4 ::
b) The District Educational Officer need not afford an opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner as the petitioner waives such right of
hearing.
c) The District Educational Officer shall dispose of Exts.P5 and P5(a)
appeals taking into account the observations made above with
respect to the pendency of W.P.(C) No.15379 of 2008.
d) It is made clear, accepting the submission made by the learned
Government Pleader, that any decision on Exts.P5 and P5(a)
appeals as well as the question of revising the staff fixation order
2008-2009 shall be subject to the decision in W.P.(C) No.15379 of
2008.
e) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified
copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer without
delay.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/