IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24135 of 2008(W)
1. BINU C.S.LG SANSKRIT TEACHER PART TIME,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
5. THE MANAGER, K.V.K.V.M.U.P.S.,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN,J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.24135 of 2008 W
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher (Part
Time) in the fifth respondent’s school. According to the petitioner, he was
appointed as Part Time Lower Grade Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 4.6.2007
onwards against the retirement vacancy of Smt. B.Suseela. The Manager
forwarded the proposal for appointment to the Assistant Educational Officer for
approval. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the appointment of the
petitioner for the reason that the school is a newly opened one and the vacancy
was to be filled up by appointing a protected teacher. On appeal, the District
Educational Officer rejected the appeal confirming the order passed by the
Assistant Educational Officer. The Manager preferred a revision to the Director
of Public Instruction who disposed of the revision as per Ext.P2 order dated
26.5.2008. The Director of Public Instruction held in Ext.P2 as follows:-
“The revision petition has
been examined in detail in consultation with
the Assistant Educational Officer and the
rules now in force. As per GO(P)46/06/GEdn.
Dt.1.2.2006 the appeal can be allowed on
daily wages since there is no protected
teacher for deployment as reported by the
Deputy Director of Education, Kollam.
WP(C) No.24135/2008
2
In the circumstances the
revision petition preferred by the manager is
allowed and the Assistant Educational
Officer, Karunagappally is directed to approve
the appointment of Sri.Binu.C.S. as Junior
Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 4.6.2007
onwards on daily wages, if it is otherwise in
order.”
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the reason
stated in Ext.P2 order for rejecting the approval is not sustainable as per the
existing rules. It is stated that there was no existing protected Lower Grade
Sanskrit Teacher (Part Time) and, therefore, there was no impediment in
approving the appointment of the petitioner. Challenging Ext.P2 order the
petitioner has filed a statutory revision petition dated 21.7.2008 (Ext.P4) before
the first respondent. Ext.P4 is pending disposal.
3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the
following:-
“I. Call for the records
leading to Ext.P2 and quash the same by
issuing a writ of certiorari
II. Issue a writ, of
mandamus or other writ order or direction to
the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders
WP(C) No.24135/2008
3
on Ext.P4 revision petition after hearing the
petitioner and pass necessary orders granting
approval of the appointment made by the 5th
respondent.
III. Issue a writ, order or
direction to the 1st respondent to declare the
petitioner’s appointment is a regular
appointment.
iv. to grant such other and
further relief which this Hon’ble Court just and
for in the circumstances of the case.”
4. In view of the pendency of Ext.P4 revision, the only
relief to which the petitioner is entitled to, for the present, is to direct the first
respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 revision.
5. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the
Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent.
Learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition
is disposed of as follows:-
WP(C) No.24135/2008
4
(1) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of
Ext.P4 revision dated 21.7.2008 filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager.
(2) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the
judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. It is made
clear that the petitioner is entitled to produce such other materials and
documents before the first respondent in support of his contentions.
(3) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment to
the fifth respondent by registered post and shall produce proof of the same
before the first respondent.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cks
WP(C) No.24135/2008
5