IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22334 of 2009(J)
1. V.P.SUBOTH, H.S.A.(MATHS),
... Petitioner
2. NEEPA PAUL, H.S.A.(PHYSICAL SCIENCE),
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S JACOBITE SYRIAN
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/08/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22334 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners herein are the Teachers appointed by the
5th respondent-Manager. The 1st petitioner was appointed as
H.S.A (Maths) with effect from 05.06.2006 in the retirement
vacancy of Sri.Paul A.Paulose which arose on 30.04.2004. The
2nd petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A in a promotion vacancy
from 20.10.2006. That appointment was approved as per
Exhibit P2. She was later promoted as H.S.A (Physical Science)
as per Exhibit P3.
2. Exhibit P1 was rejected by the 4th respondent on the
ground that the Manager did not appoint a protected teacher.
This was affirmed by the 3rd respondent on 11.10.2007. Later a
protected teacher was deputed as per Exhibit P4 by the
3rd respondent who joined duty on 18.06.2008. By Exhibit P5,
the 2nd respondent directed approval of appointment of the
1st petitioner with effect from 18.06.2008 and accordingly, it has
been approved.
W.P.(C) No.22334/2009 2
3. In the case of the 2nd petitioner also, the proposal for
approval was rejected by the 4th respondent on 21.07.2007
alleging that the protected hand is not approved. That was
affirmed by the 3rd respondent on 09.01.2008. By Exhibit P6, the
appointment is approved with effect from 02.06.2008.
4. The Manager has filed Exhibits P7 and P8 revision
petitions before the 1st respondent to the extent to which
approval is refused in respect of the earlier period. It is prayed
that the revision petitions may be directed to be disposed of
within a time frame.
There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take a
decision on Exhibits P7 and P8, after hearing the petitioners and
the Manager, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners are relying
upon the decision of this Court in Anilkumar vs. State of
Kerala (2009 (2) KLJ 402). The impact of the same on the
contentions of the parties also will be considered while disposing
of the revision petitions.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp