IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24579 of 2009(N)
1. PRASAD KUMAR.P.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER, V.K.N.M.H.S.,
6. HEAD MASTER, V.K.N.M.H.S.,
7. ANEESH.K.R., S/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.S.D.ASOKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 24579 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was an approved full-time menial in the
school of the 5th respondent for the period from 18.11.1996
to 17.11.1999 and from 01.04.2000 to 15.07.2001.
Subsequently a vacancy of Clerk arose. The petitioner laid
a claim for the said post under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A of
KER. Ultimately he had approached this court by filing
W.P.(C) Nos.25482/2002 and 28854/2006 which were
dismissed. In the meantime Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A
KER was amended incorporating a provision that claim
under the Rule would be available in respect future
vacancies in higher or lower categories. In the writ appeals
filed against the judgment in the writ petitions, the
petitioner sought amendment of the prayers in the writ
petition accordingly. Subsequently an L.D. Clerk in the
service of the school left service and there arose a vacancy
W.P.(C)No. 24579 of 2009
-2-
in 2006. According to the petitioner he is entitled to that
post in view of the amended Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A
KER. By Ext.P9 judgment, this court directed the Director
of Public Instructions to consider the claim of the petitioner
on a representation to be made by the petitioner. The
Director of Public Instructions rejected the claim holding
that amendment to Rule 51 of Chapter XIV a KER is
applicable only to teachers and not to non-teaching staff
which finding, according to the petitioner is overlooking
Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV B of the Kerala Education Rules. It
is under the above circumstances the petitioner filed this
writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Call for records leading to Exhibit P-10 and may quash
the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction commanding the
respondents 1 to 6 to appoint the petitioner as L.D. Clerk
in the vacancy arising out by resignation of Sri. Santhosh
Kumar after retrenching/replacing the 7th respondent.
(iii) Issue such other reliefs, as this Honourable Court deems
fit and just in the circumstances of the case.
2. Now the petitioner and the 5th respondent
manager have come to a compromise, which has reduced
W.P.(C)No. 24579 of 2009
-3-
to writing in I.A. No.2184/2010, which reads as follows:
“1. 5th respondent has already issued order of appointment
to the petitioner as a full time menial in a leave vacancy. True
copy of the Order of appointment is produced herewith and
marked as Exhibit P-11. 5th respondent shall absorb him in a
regular vacancy arising on retirement of Shri. C.P. Soman Nair
Peon. If any vacancy of full time menial/peon arise on an
earlier point of time 5th respondent shall appoint petitioner in
such vacancy. 5th respondent shall take all earnest effort to see
that petitioner’s appointment will be regularized and salary will
be paid to him at the earliest. Petitioner agrees that the 7th
respondent may continuing service and challenge against the
appointment of the 7th respondent is hereby withdrawn.”
3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of in terms of the said agreement which shall be
binding on the petitioner and the 5th respondent manager.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/