IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16857 of 2008(F)
1. CARMEL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF CMI
... Petitioner
2. FR. BOBY JACOB, HSA (SS),
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMMENT,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 16857 OF 2008 F
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a private educational agency, which runs
schools. The second petitioner is a High School Assistant appointed by
the first petitioner. The appointment of the second petitioner was duly
approved as per the endorsement on Ext.P1 appointment order. It is
stated that the probation of the second petitioner was duly declared on
4.6.2007 and that he was drawing salary.
2. It is stated that the first petitioner received a copy of Ext.P2
report on audit of accounts. In Ext.P2, the District Educational Officer was
directed to take urgent steps for cancellation of the order of appointment
of the second petitioner. Ext.P3 letter dated 1.4.2008 was issued by the
District Educational Officer to the Corporate Manager, forwarding the audit
report for urgent remarks and necessary action. The reply along with
supporting documents were directed to be furnished. The Corporate
Manager, submitted Ext.P4 dated 29.4.2008 in reply to Ext.P3. The
District Educational Officer has passed Ext.P5 order dated 26.4.2008,
even before the receipt of Ext.P4, sent by the Corporate Manager. Ext.P5
is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext.P5 reads as follows:
W.P.(C) NO.16857 OF 2008 F
:: 2 ::
“Please refer this office letter of even No. dated
1.4.08. Copy of the Audit Report has already been
forwarded to you vide that reference. In this regard I am to
inform you that since Director of Public Instructions has
objected the approval of appointment of the following
teacher of your school, salary to them from April 2008 can
be paid only after the objection are dropped.”
3. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P5 by
the issue of a writ of certiorari. There is also a prayer for the issue of a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the salary due to
the second petitioner for the months of April and May, 2008.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Pleader. It is not disputed that the matter has to be disposed
of by the Director of Public Instructions finally. Even in Ext.P5, it is stated
that salary from April 2008 shall be paid only after the objections are
dropped. It is for the Director of Public Instructions to consider and decide
whether the objections are to be dropped. In view of the withholding of
the salary as per Ext.P5, it is absolutely necessary that the Director of
Public Instructions shall look into the matter and pass final orders
considering Ext.P4 reply submitted by the Corporate Manager and also
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The Director of
Public Instructions shall pass orders within a period of one month from
today. If the matter is not disposed of by the Director of Public
Instructions within the aforesaid period, the second petitioner shall be paid
W.P.(C) NO.16857 OF 2008 F
:: 3 ::
salary from April 2008 onwards, subject to the disposal of the matter by
the Director of Public Instructions. The petitioners undertake that they will
not seek adjournment when the matter is posted before the Director of
Public Instructions.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/