Jayasree.G. vs The District Educational Officer on 29 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4546 of 2008(N)


1. JAYASREE.G., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), KOLLAM.

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :29/05/2008

 O R D E R
                                     K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                ............................................................................
                               W.P.(C) No. 4546 OF 2008
                ............................................................................
                                Dated this the 29th May, 2008



                                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as HSA ( Sanskrit) in the AEPM Higher Secondary

School, Irumpanangad. She was appointed as HSA (Sanskrit) against the retirement

vacancy of one Sambasivan who retired from service on 31.05.2006. Ext.P1 is the

appointment order of the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that there was a

vacancy of HSA (Sanskrit) at the time when the petitioner was appointed. Exts. P1 and

P2 are relied on in support of that contention.

2. The District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara declined to approve the

appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order dated 02.08.2007 on the ground that

the Manager had not complied with the departmental directions and orders passed by

this Court to appoint a claimant in the category of non-teaching staff under Rule 51 B of

K.E.R. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 order before the Government . The

Government passed Ext. P6 order confirming the order passed by the District

Educational Officer. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 order is as follows:

“4. Government have examined the case in detail with the

reports of Educational Officers. The Director of Public

Instruction reports that Smt. M.G. Ambili is a 51 B claimant for

the post of Full Time Menial under dying in harness scheme.

The claim of Smt. Ambili was rejected by the Manager. In the

appeal filed by Smt. Ambili, the Director of Public Instruction set

aside the order passed by the Manager and the same was

confirmed by the subsequent order passed by Government.

W.P.(C) No. 4546 OF 2008

2

5. Smt. Ambili filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court

and the Court in the judgment dated 16.08.2006 has directed to

the Director of Public Instruction to take follow up action for

implementation of the order within 1 months from 16.08.2006.

Accordingly, the Director of Public Instruction issued direction to

the Manager to implement the orders passed by the

Educational authorities. But the Manager had not implemented

the direction of the Educational authorities.

6. In the circumstances, the request in the Ext. P4 cannot be

considered and is therefore rejected. ”

3. The reasons stated in Exts. P3 and P6 for not approving the appointment of

the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable. Whether the Manager has complied with the

directions in the matter of appointment of a claimant in the category of non-teaching

staff under Rule 51 B of K.E.R is not relevant for considering the question whether the

appointment of the petitioner as HSA (Sanskrit) should be approved or not. If the

Manager has not complied with the departmental directions, appropriate action could be

taken against him. The relevant matters to be considered for granting approval of the

appointment of an HSA were not taken note of by the District Educational Officer. The

only reason stated by him in Ext.P3 order is that the Manager has not complied with the

departmental directions in respect of the appointment of a claimant in the category of

non-teaching staff under Rule 51 B of K.E.R. Since the reason stated in Ext.P3 order

for not approving the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable, I am of

the view that Ext.P3 order and Ext.P6 order passed by the Government confirming

the order of the District Educational Officer, are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Exts. P3 and P6 are quashed. The

District Educational Officer, Kottarakkara shall consider the question of approval of

W.P.(C) No. 4546 OF 2008

3

appointment of the petitioner afresh taking into account the relevant facts and in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two

months from today.

K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

lk