IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1624 of 2010(C)
1. LILA M.ITTY, W/O.K.GEORGE JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
5. GIREEASH V.K., S/O.RAJAN,
6. SHEENA SHERIN SUKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :25/01/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 1624 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 25th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext. P11 order passed by the District
Educational Officer, whereby the petitioner has been directed to
restore the position of certain teachers who have been transferred to
various schools, as on 27-5-2009 in accordance with Ext. P10 order of
the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode. It is also stated in Ext.
P11 that the petitioner would be liable for salary and other benefits
due to the teachers consequent to the non-compliance with the first
direction. The petitioner’s contention is that at the relevant time, the
petitioner was not the Headmistress of the school and therefore she
is not bound to comply with the directions. Notwithstanding the fact
that the petitioner was not the Headmistress at the relevant time,
since the transfers have been cancelled and it has been directed that
the position of the teachers be restored as on 27-5-2009, the
petitioner being the present Headmistress, it is her duty to pass
appropriate consequential orders although she may not be liable for
what happened prior to her taking charges as Headmistress in the
school. As such, the petitioner’s challenge against Ext. P11 is without
any merit.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.