IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18841 of 2009(A)
1. A.AHAMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18841 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are respectively the Manager and the High
School Assistant (Social Science) of S.N.M. Higher Secondary
School, Parappanangadi. The 2nd petitioner was appointed in the
school as H.S.A (Social Science) from 02.09.2002 to 13.01.2003,
14.01.2003 to 13.03.2003 and 01.08.2003 to 03.10.2003 and
those appointments have been approved, which is evidenced by
Exhibits P1 to P3 appointment orders. Again the 2nd petitioner
was regularly appointed against the retirement vacancy as H.S.A
(Social Science) in the school from 01.08.2005 as per Exhibit P4
order. But, the approval of the same was declined as per
Exhibit P5 against which a revision petition was filed as Exhibit P6
before the Government. The said revision petition stands
rejected as per Exhibit P7.
2. The petitioners are relying on Exhibit P8, an order dated
17.06.2009 passed by the Government, which will show that the
W.P.(C) No.18841/2009 2
objection taken against the approval cannot be sustained. It is
made clear in Exhibit P8 that the teachers who have been
appointed prior to 16.11.2002 as H.S.A in core subjects and who
are eligible under Rule 51A Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education
Rules could get approval in respect of appointment in vacancies
which have arisen subsequent to 16.11.2002 in terms of the
subject ratio which existed prior to 07.01.2002. It is pointed out
that the same is a subsequent order passed by the Government
after the disposal of the revision petition by Exhibit P7.
Therefore, the petitioners pray for a reconsideration of Exhibit P6
in the light of Exhibit P8.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P6
revision petition afresh, after hearing the petitioners, in the light
of Exhibit P8 order. To enable the Government to hear the
revision petition again, Exhibit P7 is set aside. The revision
petition will be disposed of afresh within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp