IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11039 of 2008(L)
1. RAVEENDRAN.C.H.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. CORPORATE MANAGER,
3. SMT.CICILY JOHN, PRINCIPAL,
4. REMILA GRACE VIJAYAN,
5. THOMAS.T.KURUVILLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/08/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 11039 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 7th August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner started service as a U.P. School Assistant in one
of the schools of the educational agency of which the 2nd respondent is
the corporate manager. On 6-7-1989, he was promoted as High
School Assistant. Later, the school was upgraded as Higher
Secondary School. In 1998, 14 vacancies of HSST were sanctioned.
The petitioner laid claim for one of those posts in the 25% quota
prescribed for teachers of the same educational agency. The
petitioner was not given promotion. The petitioner approached this
Court and obtained Ext. P1 judgment for consideration of his
representation in this regard by the Director of Higher Secondary
Education. The Director passed Ext. P2 order dated 25-9-1999
rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner again approached this
Court and obtained Ext. P3 judgment for disposal of his
representation again by the manager. Again, the manager passed
Ext. P4 order dated 10-1-2000 again rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
In the meanwhile, another person by name Ajithpal was appointed as
Higher Secondary School Teacher. The petitioner challenged that
appointment before this Court and by Ext. P5 judgment, although
this Court dismissed that writ petition, permitted the petitioner to
ventilate his grievance, if any, against the appointment given to Mr.
Ajithpal before the Director, if he so desires. Thereafter, by Ext. P6
order dated 21-9-2005 the petitioner was promoted as HSST,
Economics (Junior). Subsequently the petitioner filed Ext. P7
representation before the Director of Higher Secondary Education.
According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be appointed as HSST in
1998 and consequently he is entitled to be promoted as Principal in
2005. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following
reliefs:
W.P.C. No. 11039/2008 -: 2 :-
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to grant promotion to
the post of HSST to the petitioner from 1998 which has been
denied to him till now.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the
petitioner as Principal from 2005 and approve the appointment as
Principal from that date.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner the
monetary benefits due to him if the promotions had been given to
him from 1988 as HSST and Principal in 2005.”
2. Counter affidavits have been filed by all the respondents
denying the claim of the petitioner.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner’s claim is to the 4th vacancy in the
25% quota reserved for qualified teachers of the same educational
agency. In 1998, only three persons were appointed. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot have any grievance in respect of the appointment of
the said three persons. In the 4th vacancy Mr. Ajithpal was appointed
in 2001. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court and
suffered Ext. P5 judgment in which since there was no material
placed before this Court, this Court refused to examined the legality
of appointment of Mr. Ajithpal and dismissed th writ petition, but
gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director, if he desires.
Subsequently, Mr. Ajithpal left the school and in the resultant
vacancy, the petitioner has been appointed. Now, the contention of
the petitioner is that he should have been appointed in the place of
Sri. Ajithpal in 2001. That challenge cannot be considered in this
writ petition since the petitioner has not chosen to implead Mr.
Ajithpal as a party to this writ petition. In order to allow the claim of
W.P.C. No. 11039/2008 -: 3 :-
the petitioner, I will have to necessarily interfere with the
appointment of Mr. Ajithpal, which cannot be done without hearing
him. Therefore, that contention also cannot be considered now.
5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submits that as
permitted in Ext. P5 judgment, the petitioner has filed Ext. P7
representation before the Director of Higher Secondary Education
and the Director may be directed to dispose of that representation . I
am not inclined to consider that prayer also, since Ext. P5 judgment
was passed on 3-10-2005 permitting the petitioner to ventilate his
grievances before the Director and the petitioner has filed Ext. P7
representation only on 15-2-2008, 2 = years thereafter. I do not
think that the petitioner should be allowed to re-agitate a stale claim
at this point of time.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/