IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35221 of 2010(C)
1. ROBY MATHEW, H.S.A. (ENGLISH),
... Petitioner
2. BINU C.MANI, H.S.A. (MATHS.),
3. SURAJ DOMINIC.S.J., H.S.A. (ENGLISH),
4. FR.THADEYOOR.S., SJ, H.S.A. (SOCIAL
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. SONI MATHEW, KUTTIKATTUMANNIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35221 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were appointed as HSAs in
St.Joseph’s Boys’ Higher Secondary School,
Kozhikode. The District Educational Officer
declined approval of the appointment of the
petitioners as per Exts.P10 to P13 orders.
Challenging those orders, the Manager filed appeals
before the Deputy Director of Education, who
dismissed the appeals, as per Exts.P14 to P16. In
this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge
Exts.P10 to P16 orders. There is also a prayer to
issue a direction to the District Educational
Officer to approve the appointments of the
petitioners and to disburse the salary and other
monetary benefits to the petitioners.
2. The learned Government Pleader pointed out
that under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER, the
W.P.(C).No.35221 OF 2010 2
petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing
revision before the Director of Public Instruction.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners have an
alternative remedy. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the only ground on which
the approval was rejected was that the Rule 51A
th
claim put forward by the 4 respondent was pending.
The learned counsel submits that the question
th
whether the 4 respondent is entitled to
preferential claim under Rule 51A is pending before
the Government. It is also submitted that even if
th
the claim made by the 4 respondent is genuine, it
would affect the appointment of only one of the
petitioners. It is submitted that in such a case,
rd
the appointment of the 3 petitioner alone need be
declined and the appointment of the other
petitioners could be approved. This contention
could very well be taken in revision before the
Director of Public Instruction.
3. Since the petitioners have an effective
W.P.(C).No.35221 OF 2010 3
alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain
the Writ Petition. The contention put forward by
the petitioners can be considered by the Director
of Public Instruction in the revision which the
petitioners may file.
With the above observation, the Writ Petition
is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms