IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10985 of 2009(P)
1. ASHA P.M., W/O.SUJAVUDHEEN R.M.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :03/04/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.10985 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated 3rd April, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the order that I
propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the fifth
respondent.
2. The fifth respondent Manager appointed the petitioner as
Upper Primary School Assistant by Ext.P1 order dated 14.6.2007. By
Ext.P4 order passed on 11.2.2008, the District Educational Officer
declined to approve the said appointment. The Manager thereupon filed
an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. The said appeal was
dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 17.7.2008. The petitioner states that
though the Manager had filed Ext.P6 revision petition before the Director
of Public Instruction, the Manager did not pursue it and therefore she
was constrained to file Ext.P7 revision petition before the State
Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education
Rules. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P5 and
also seeks a direction to the State Government to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P7 revision petition after affording her and the Manager a
WP(C).No.10985/2009 2
reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. Exts.P4 and P5 disclose that the petitioner’s
appointment as per Ext.P1 has not been approved. Though the
Manager had moved the Director of Public Instruction in Ext.P6
revision petition, the petitioner states that the Manager did not pursue
it and therefore she proceeded on the basis that the said revision
petition was rejected. Even if that be so, the Government can exercise
the power of revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the K.E.R.
and revise Exts.P4 and P5 and the order if any passed by the Director
of Public Instruction on Ext.P6. The petitioner was appointed on
14.6.2007. Nearly two years have passed thereafter. In these
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Government should
expeditiously consider Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon. I accordingly
dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to
Government, General Education Department to consider Ext.P7
revision petition and pass orders thereon after affording the petitioner
and the fifth respondent Manager a reasonable opportunity of being
heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within three months
from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this writ
petition along with a copy of this judgment. I further direct that in
WP(C).No.10985/2009 3
view of the directions issued above, the Director of Public Instruction
need not pass orders on Ext.P6 revision petition filed by the Manager if
it has not so far been disposed of and the said revision shall stand
struck off.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS