IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2288 of 2009(V)
1. P.K.LATHIEF, AGED 36 YEARS, PEON,
... Petitioner
2. A.A.MOHAMMED RIYAS, PEON,
Vs
1. THE 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 CORPORATE MANAGER, MUSLIM
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 2288 OF 2009 V
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st January, 2009
JUDGMENT
It is stated in the Writ Petition that the first petitioner was appointed
as Peon in M.E.S.Higher Secondary School, Sreenarayanapuram with
effect from 30.9.2005 and the second petitioner was appointed as Peon
from 1.10.2005 onwards. The proposals for approval of their
appointments were rejected by the District Educational Officer, which was
confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Director of Education and further
confirmed in Second Appeal by the Director of Public Instruction. Exts.P1
and P2 are the orders passed by the Director of Public Instruction.
Challenging Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners have filed Exts.P3 and P4
Revision Petitions before the Government. Exts.P3 and P4 are pending
disposal. The petitioners rely on Exts.P11 to P17 orders of the
educational authorities as well as the Government in support of their
contentions. The petitioners also rely on Exts.P20 judgment, which
according to the petitioners, was rendered in similar circumstances in
respect of an appointment in the same school in which the petitioners are
appointed.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 and P2 and
quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ
of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order;
W.P.(C) NO.2288 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent
District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda to approve
the appointments of the Petitioners as Peons from
30.9.2005 and 1.10.2005 onwards and disburse the
salary and allowances from the date of their
appointments forthwith;
(iii) issue an interim direction commanding the 1st
Respondent to effectively consider and pass
appropriate orders upon Exhibit P3 and P4 after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the
Petitioners within a time limit taking into account
Exhibits P11 to P18 orders and Exhibits P19 and P20
Judgments;
(iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the
circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, for the time
being, the petitioners would be satisfied if Exts.P3 and P4 Revision
Petitions are disposed of by the Government expeditiously. Learned
Government Pleader submitted that the Government would dispose of
Exts.P3 and P4 Revisions at the earliest.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is
disposed of as follows:
a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4
Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as
W.P.(C) NO.2288 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the fifth respondent
and any other affected party.
b) The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and
certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.
c) The petitioners shall send a copy of the Writ Petition and a true
copy of the judgment to the fifth respondent by registered post and
shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent.
d) The petitioners would be entitled to rely on Exts.P11 to P17 and
P20 before the first respondent. It is made clear that I have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/