IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1666 of 2009(W)
1. P.A.SHAHANA
... Petitioner
2. V.A.SAKEENA
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :15/01/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 1666 OF 2009 W
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are High School Assistants in M.E.S.Higher
Secondary School, Sreenarayanapuram in Thrissur District. It is stated
that the petitioners were appointed as H.S.A.(Malayalam) with effect from
25.7.2005 and 18.6.2004 onwards respectively. The District Educational
Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioners
on the ground that protected teachers were not appointed in the newly
opened school. The Deputy Director of Education rejected the appeal
filed by the Manager. The further appeal filed by the Manager before the
Director of Public Instruction was dismissed as per Ext.P2 order dated
23.2.2008. The Manager has filed a Revision before the Government
against Ext.P2 order The petitioners have also filed Exts.P3 and P4
Revisions before the Government challenging Ext.P2 order. The
Revisions filed by the Manager as well as the petitioners are pending
disposal before the first respondent. Petitioners rely on Exts.P8 to P17 in
support of their contentions. Exts.P8 to P10 relate to appointment of
three protected High School Assistants in the School. Appointments
made even before Exts.P8 to P10 were approved by Exts.P11 to P15.
The petitioners contend that similar treatment should have been extended
W.P.(C) NO.1666 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
to them also, the Manager having complied with the necessity to appoint
protected teachers in the newly opened school. Exts.P16 and P17 are
orders in respect of the appointments in other schools, on which the
petitioner rely, on the ground that Government had approved
appointments in similar circumstances.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P2 and quash
the original of the same by the issue of a writ of
certiorari or other appropriate writ or order so far as
the petitioners are concerned;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent
District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda to approve
the appointments of the Petitioners as High School
Assistants (Malayalam) from 25.7.2005 and
18.6.2004 onwards and disburse the salary and
allowances from the date of their appointments
forthwith.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to
effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon
Exhibits P3 and P4 within a reasonable time after
giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners
taking into account Exhibits P11 to P18 orders and
Exhibits P19 and P20 judgments;
(iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the
circumstances of the case.”
W.P.(C) NO.1666 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, for the time
being, the petitioners would be satisfied if relief (iii) is granted leaving
open their right to seek the other reliefs at the appropriate stage. Learned
Government Pleader submitted that Exts.P3 and P4 Revisions would be
disposed of at the earliest.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is
disposed of as follows:
a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4
Revisions and also the Revision filed by the Manager against
Ext.P2 order, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and
the Manager. The first respondent shall take into account the
relevant documents among Exts.P8 to P18 and also consider the
binding precedents.
b) The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and
certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.
W.P.(C) NO.1666 OF 2009
:: 4 ::
c) The petitioners shall send a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of
the judgment to the fifth respondent by registered post and shall
produce proof of the same before the first respondent.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/