IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26953 of 2010(T)
1. A.LEELAMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION),KOLLAM.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
5. THE JOINT MANAGERS
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010
------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as a Headmistress-in-
charge in Chempakassery Teachers’ Training
Institute, Bhoothakulam, Kollam District. She was
appointed as Headmistress as per Ext.P1 order of
appointment dated 27.3.2008. Ext.P1 order was
signed by the joint managers. It would appear that
there was management dispute. The counsel for the
petitioner submitted that while making the
appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, both
the rival claimants for managership put their
signature in the appointment order. The proposal
for approval of appointment was forwarded to the
District Educational Officer, Kollam, who passed
Ext.P2 order dated 7.7.2008, which reads as
follows:
“Due to the Management dispute in
Chempakassery UPS, HSS and TTI, there is an
administrative vacuums to proforma the daily
routine work in Chempakassery TTI. The
Senior Assistant of Chempakassery TTI as per
the letter read above permission is accordedW.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 2
to do the daily routine work of the school.
As per the combined seniority list
maintained under the management
Smt.A.Leelamma is the senior most claimant
to get appoint for the post of Headmistress
in Chempakassery. Therefore, Smt.A.Leelamma,
Senior Assistant is allowed to proforma the
daily routine work in the school on
provisional basis till the management
dispute is over.”
2. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer
passed an order dated 8.7.2009 (Ext.P3), rejecting
the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as
Headmistress from 1.1.2009 onwards on the ground
that the proposal was received in the office only
on 28.1.2009, that is, beyond 15 days. The Joint
Managers challenged Ext.P3 order in appeal before
the Deputy Director of Education, who disposed of
the appeal as per Ext.P4 order dated 31.12.2009,
the operative portion of which reads as follows:
“The remarks furnished by D.E.O.Kollam
examined with arguments of the manager and
convinced that the appointment was rejected
only for the reason that the appointment
order received the office of the
D.E.O.Kollam delayed for 13 days. In normal
cases the appointment order should received
the office of the D.E.O. Kollam within 15
days from the date of appointment. In the
recommended proforma submitted by the
D.E.O.Kollam for condonation of delayW.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 3
explains that one of the joint managers of
the school was hospitalized due to illness
at the time of appointment and hence he was
not able to submit the appointment proposal
within the time limit.
As per Rule 8(1) Chapter XIV A KER, the
Dy.Director (Education) is empowered with
getting condoned delay up to 6 months.
Hence, in this case delay involved in
submitting the proposal to the D.E.O. Kollam
is only 13 days which is within the
statutory power of this authority. It is
also convinced that the delay came about in
submitting the proposal is not intentional.
In the circumstances stated above, the
request of the joint manager for condonation
of delay in favour of Smt.A.Leelamma as H.M.
is allowed in exercise of the powers
conferred under Rule 8(1) Chapter XIV A
KER.”
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that
after Ext.P4 order dated 31.12.2009 was passed, the
District Educational Officer has not passed any
order for approval of appointment of the
petitioner. The petitioner points out that in the
resultant vacancy on the appointment of the
petitioner as Headmistress, one K.R.Gopakumar was
appointed and that appointment was approved by the
appellate order passed by the Deputy Director of
Education, dated 30.3.2010 (Ext.P5). Still, the
W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 4
District Educational Officer has not approved the
appointment of the petitioner.
4. On behalf of the second respondent, a
statement dated 14th October, 2010 is filed by
K.G.Vijayakumar, P.A.to the District Educational
Officer. The statement reads as follows:
“The Writ Petitioner is the Headmistress in
Charge of Chempakassery TTI, Bhoothakulam,
Kollam. She is aggrieved since the
appointment as Headmistress from 1.4.2008
was not been approved even though she is the
senior most qualified Training School
Teacher/H.S.A.for promotion of Headmistress.
The appointment order issued to the
petitioner by order No.JM/TTI/41/08 dated
27.3.2008, signed by joint Managers. Due to
the management dispute in Chemapakassery
Educational Agency, the District Educational
Officer, Kollam has allowed the petitioner,
the senior most teacher to perform the daily
routine work in the School on provisional
basis till the management dispute is
settled, as per order No.B4/5037/08 dated
7.7.2008. After the settlement of
management dispute the joint Managers
appointed the petitioner as the Headmistress
in Chempakassery TTI w.e.f. 1.1.2009. But
the appointment was rejected by the D.E.O.
on the ground that the proposal is belated.
The joint Managers filed an Appeal before
the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam.
As per order No.B3/16570/09/K.Dis. dated
31.12.2009, the Deputy Director of
Education, Kollam has allowed the
condonation of delay. In the above order the
Deputy Director of Education, Kollam has notW.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 5
issued any direction to the District
Educational Officer to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as
Headmistress. Hence a clarification has
already been sought from the Deputy Director
of Education, Kollam in the matter vide
letter No.B4/600/10 dated 21.7.2010. This
office is awaiting the clarification from
the office of the Deputy Director of
Education, Kollam. In the above
circumstances the Writ Petition may be
disposed of.”
5. I am of the view that the District
Educational Officer was not justified in not
considering the proposal for approval of the
petitioner as Headmistress. The District
Educational Officer rejected the proposal only on
the ground of delay. The Deputy Director, as per
Ext.P4 order, has condoned the delay. The
necessary consequence is that the District
Educational Officer shall consider the proposal for
approval of appointment of the petitioner on the
merits. It is not necessary to get any
clarification from the Deputy Director of Education
as indicated in the statement. The Deputy Director
of Education need not necessarily forward any
clarification as well.
W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 6
6. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in
the Writ Petition are the following:
“i). to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
order of direction, calling for the records
up to Ext.P5 and quash Ext.P2 and Ext.P3.
ii). to issue a declaration that the petitioner
is entitled to be approved as Headmistress
w.e.f. 1.4.2008 in the Chempakassery TTI,
w.e.f. 1.4.2008 with all consequential
benefits including arrears of salary with
penal interest at the rate of 12% P.A.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or
order directing the 2nd respondent to approve
the appointment of the petitioner as
Headmistress in the Chempakassery TTI and to
pay the consequential benefits including
salary arrears from 1.4.2008 onwards and pay
penal interest at the rate of 12% P.A.
iv) to issue such other further reliefs as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of this case.”
7.It is not necessary to grant reliefs (i) and
(ii). Ext.P2 need not be quashed since the
petitioner was allowed to continue to work as
teacher-in-charge as per that order. As against
Ext.P3, an appeal was filed before the Deputy
Director of Education and that appeal was allowed
as per Ext.P4. Therefore, Ext.P3 also need not be
W.P.(C).No.26953 OF 2010 7
quashed. The second relief cannot be granted in
this Writ Petition, since the primary authority,
namely, the District Educational Officer has to
consider the question of approval. Relief No.(iii)
is partly allowed and the District Educational
Officer is directed to consider the proposal for
approval of appointment of the petitioner as
Headmistress, with effect from 1.4.2008, as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce
a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of
the judgment before the District Educational
Officer. The petitioner shall also send a copy of
the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment to
respondent No.5 by registered post and she shall
produce proof of the same before the District
Educational Officer.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms