IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3650 of 2009(H)
1. SHERLY VARGHESE ,AGED 44 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR
3. THE MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 3650 OF 2009 H
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th February, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher
(Malayalam) in S.C.Higher Secondary School, Chellackadu, Ranni. She
was originally appointed as High School Assistant. The School was
upgraded as Higher Secondary School. A vacancy of Higher Secondary
School Teacher (Malayalam) arose on 15.7.2002. The case of the
petitioner is that she was entitled to be promoted to that post. It would
appear that one Jaya C.Mathew was appointed as HSST (Malayalam).
The Regional Deputy Director approved the appointment of the petitioner
as HSST (Malayalam) only with effect from 15.7.2005, on the ground that
a retirement vacancy arose on 30.3.2005 on the retirement of Aleyamma
Chacko. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Director of
Higher Secondary Education. Her case is that she was entitled to be
promoted on 15.7.2002 in the 25% quota of HSAs by transfer. Since no
action was being taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner,
she was constrained to file W.P.(C) NO.33887 of 2007, which was
disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 16.11.2007. The Director of
Higher Secondary Education was directed to consider the representation
submitted by the petitioner within a time frame. Thereafter, the Director
W.P.(C) NO.3650 OF 2009 H
:: 2 ::
passed Ext.P2 order dated 4.1.2008, taking the view that the appointment
of the petitioner as HSST (Malayalam) could be approved only with effect
from 15.7.2005. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioner filed Ext.P3
representation dated 10.1.2008 before the Government, wherein it is
pointed out that as per the Government letter dated 4.3.2004, the
Government had taken the view that the appointment of Jaya C.Mathew
was irregular. The said Government letter is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P3
representation is pending disposal before the first respondent.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to
consider Exhibit P3 on its merits within a time frame to
be fixed by this Honourable Court;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to
grant promotion with effect from 15.7.2002 to the
petitioner in view of Exhibit P4 Government order;
iii) grant such other relief.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
confines the relief to relief (i) for the time being, reserving her right to
pursue the other reliefs at the appropriate stage. Learned Government
Pleader submits that Ext.P3 representation would be disposed of by the
first respondent without delay.
W.P.(C) NO.3650 OF 2009 H
:: 3 ::
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of as
follows:
a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P3
representation dated 10.1.2008 submitted by the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the
Manager, Jaya C. Mathew and any other party whose interests
are likely to be affected..
b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified
copy of the judgment before the first respondent.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/