IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 261 of 2007()
1. E. GOMATHIAMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. SMT. JAYALEKSHMI V. NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/02/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant in both the appeals is the Manager of
A.G.R.M. Higher Secondary School, Vallikkunnam, Alappuzha.
W.A. 261 of 2007 is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.23698 of 2003 and W.A. 472 of 2007 is against the judgment
in W.P.(C) No.24190 of 2003. She was the writ petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.23698 of 2003 and the second respondent in
W.P.C.No. 24190 of 2003. The first writ petition was filed by
her challenging Ext.P6 order of the Deputy Director of
Education, Alleppey disqualifying her to hold the office of
Manager and also appointing the D.E.O., Mavelikkara to
function as Manager. As per that order, it was also ordered that
Jayalakshmi V. Nair, a 51A claimant, who was denied
appointment by the appellant will be entitled to get from the
appellant the salary she lost. The second original petition was
W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007
2
filed by the aforementioned 51A claimant seeking a direction to the
Manager to appoint her. She has worked in the school from 26.6.1998
to 27.8.1998 and from 28.9.98 to 13.11.98 as lower grade Hindi
teacher. When a vacancy arose in the school from 15.11.2000 she was
denied appointment by the appellant. The 51A claimant got the initial
spells of appointment when another person was holding the office of
Manager. The management dispute was finally settled in favour of the
appellant and she assumed office on 11.8.2000. In fact, she submits,
she was appointed as Manager on 15.1.1998, but she could assume
office only on 11.8.2000. Her predecessor in office continued as
Manager during the above period and made the above said
appointments of Jayalakshmi V. Nair, which made her a 51A claimant.
That was the reason why she was not willing to give re-appointment to
the above mentioned 51A claimant.
2. It is unnecessary to refer to the detailed facts, in view of the
limited submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The
writ petition filed by the 51A claimant teacher was allowed by the
learned Single Judge by directing to appoint her as lower grade Hindi
W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007
3
teacher w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and to approve her appointment. It was also
held that she is eligible to get the regular vacancy that arose in the
school in the above post during the academic year 2002 – 2003. While
directing to appoint her, the controlling officer was directed to approve
her appointment also. Writ Petition No. 23698 of 2003 filed by the
Manager was also allowed. Ext.P6 mentioned in that writ petition was
quashed by this court for the reason that the same was passed without
following the due procedure. The Deputy Director was given liberty to
take fresh action in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly canvassed before
us the point that there was no justification for giving liberty to the
Deputy Director to proceed further in the matter. The learned Single
Judge interfered with Ext.P6 mainly for the reason that it was issued
without following the due procedure. This court is not exercising any
appellate power but only exercising the power of judicial review. So,
the matter was remitted to the Deputy Director to pass orders in
accordance with law. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with
the said direction.
W.A.Nos. 261 & 472 of 2007
4
4. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice that
pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge the Deputy
Director of Education, Alapuzha, after hearing the appellant, has
passed order No.B3/12022/05 dt.25.9.2008 against the appellant.
5. In view of the above development, these writ appeals are
dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to challenge
the aforementioned order of the Deputy Director of Education. All her
contentions regarding her disqualification are kept open.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm