IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20296 of 2007(N)
1. MANJOOSHA MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE D.E.O.,
3. A.N.SABU,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.S.EASWARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P. (C) No. 20296 OF 2007 & 19700 OF 2008
............................................................................
Dated this the 2nd July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Writ Petition No.20296 of 2007 is filed by Manjoosha Mathew who was
appointed as U.PS.A. in the Gracy Memorial High School Parathode while W.P.(C)
NO.19700 of 2008 is filed by the Manager of the school.
2. Manjoosha Mathew was appointed as U.P.S.A. on 03.10.2005. She worked
in the school from 03.10.2005 onwards. On 18.05.2006, she submitted application for
maternity leave. After maternity leave, it is stated, when she went to the school on
28.09.2006, the Manager told her that the post was filled by appointing another teacher
and directed the petitioner to continue to work on daily wages. The petitioner worked
as daily waged teacher. According to her, she was not paid salary. Manjoosha
Mathew says that on 20.12.2006, she was informed that she was removed from the post
of daily waged teacher as well and that no orders were issued by the Manager.
Manjoosha Mathew filed W.P.(C) 858 of 2007 . As per the judgment dated 23rd
February, 2007 that Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No. 5892 of 2007 was
disposed of directing the Deputy Director of Education to dispose of the appeal filed by
Manjoosha Mathew after hearing all the parties.
3. The Deputy Director of Education disposed of the appeal, as per the order
dated 26.04.2007, holding that Manjoosha Mathew was entitled to be appointed in a
substantive post from 03.10.2005 and that she was entitled to be continued in service.
The District Educational Officer was directed to pass appropriate orders. The
contention of Manjoosha Mathew is that in spite of the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Education, she was not allowed to continue in service and that she was not
W.P. (C) No. 20296 OF 2007 & 19700 OF 2008
2
reinstated.
4. The main relief prayed for in the Writ Petition No. 20296 of 2007 is to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the District Educational Officer and the Manager of the
School to implement the order dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of
Education by reinstating the petitioner (Manjoosha Mathew) in the post of U.P.S.A. in
the Gracy Memorial High School with retrospective effect from 03.10.2005.
5. The Manager filed a revision before the Director of Public Instruction
challenging the order dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Education.
The Director of Public Instruction by order dated 04.08.2007 confirmed the order
passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The Director of Public Instruction held
that Manjoosha Mathew is entitled to be appointed and that there was no ground for not
reinstating her in service. Challenging the order passed by the Director of Public
Instruction, the Manager filed a revision dated 5th September, 2007 before the
Government. He has also filed a stay petition dated 5th September, 2007 along with the
revision. The stay petition is also not disposed of by the Government.
6. Manjoosha Mathew says that she should be given the benefit of the order
dated 26.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Education which was confirmed
by the Director of Public Instruction., whereas the Manager says that the matter has
not become final as the revision filed by him before the Government is pending
disposal. I am of the view that the interests of both the parties would be protected if a
direction is issued to the Government to dispose of the revision filed by the Manager.
Learned counsel for the teacher submitted that the revision itself is not maintainable
since the Manager having filed a revision before the Director of Public Instructions. It is
W.P. (C) No. 20296 OF 2007 & 19700 OF 2008
3
made clear that the teacher would be entitled to raise this point as well before the
Government. The question whether a stay should be granted or whether the order
passed by the Deputy Director of Education which was confirmed in revision by the
Director of Public Instruction should be enforced pending revision before the
Government, is a matter to be decided by the Government. The parties would be bound
by any interim order passed by the Government. The prayer for stay pending revision
would be considered by the Government within a period of one month from today and
the revision itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. In case the Government pass an order to reinstate
the teacher, the Manager should immediately implement that order. The Government
shall hear the Manager, Manjoosha Mathew and also Sini, who was appointed by the
Manager pending the proceedings before the educational authorities and also any other
person who is likely to be affected. The Manager as well as Manjoosha Mathew shall
produce before the Government a copy of the respective Writ Petition filed by them.
The Manager shall also produce a certified copy of the judgment before the
Government without any delay.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk