IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32746 of 2010(P)
1. JUNU.N.RAJ, H.S.A.(P.S.)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALA.
5. CORPORATE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/11/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.32746 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Physical
Science) in St. Paul’s G.H.S., Vettimukal. The petitioner was
initially appointed in a leave vacancy in St.Joseph’s G.H.S.,
Mundakayam from 16.6.1997 to 11.8.1997 which was approved
by the District Educational Officer. Later, the petitioner was
appointed in a permanent vacancy on 2.6.1999 in Little Flower
G.H.S., Munnar. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to
St.Joseph’s G.H.S., Mundakayam. While so, a permanent
vacancy of H.S.A. (Physical Science) arose in St.Paul’s G.H.S.,
Vettimukal due to voluntary retirement of Salilamma Thomas.
The petitioner was transferred and posted in the said vacancy by
Exhibit P1 order of appointment dated 30.5.2009. The District
Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of
appointment of the petitioner, by Exhibit P2 order dated
5.8.2009. Exhibit P2 was challenged in appeal by the Manager
and also by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of
WPC No.32746/2010 2
Education, which were dismissed as per Exhibit P3 order dated
7.11.2009. The Manager preferred an appeal before the
Director of Public Instruction, which was dismissed as per
Exhibit P5 order dated 23.6.2010. The petitioner filed Exhibit P6
revision dated 8.9.2010 before the Government challenging
Exhibit P5 order. Exhibit P6 revision is pending disposal. It is
submitted that the Manager has also filed Exhibit P8 revision
dated 9.9.2010 before the Government. The contention of the
petitioner is that Exhibit P10 order dated 15.11.2008 issued by
the Director of Public Instruction is relevant in the present case
and therefore, there is no impediment in approving the
appointment of the petitioner.
2. Since Exhibits P6 and P8 are pending before the
Government, it is not necessary to decide the Writ Petition on
the merits on the question of approval of appointment of the
petitioner. Though several reliefs are prayed for in the Writ
Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
for the time being, a direction to dispose of the revisions would
be sufficient.
3. In the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is
WPC No.32746/2010 3
disposed of as follows:
(i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of
Exhibit P6 revision filed by the petitioner and Exhibit
P8 revision filed by the Manager, 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 5th respondent Manager
and any other affected party.
(ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ
Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the
first respondent.
(iii) The petitioner shall send a copy of the Writ Petition
and a copy of the judgment to the fifth respondent
Manager by registered post and shall produce proof
of the same before the first respondent.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl