IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2234 of 2008()
1. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.KHADER KUNJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.)
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINJANAM VILLAGE
4. P.M.RAZIA, HEAD MISTRESS, W/O.KHALID,
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :20/02/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 2234 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is the Manager of
an Aided School. The Headmistress of the school was suspended
by him by Ext.P2 proceedings dt.10.6.2002 for a period of 15
days. Though the appellant moved for extension of the
suspension period beyond 15 days before the Asst. Educational
Officer, the same was not granted. Even thereafter, she was not
allegedly allowed to join duty. Therefore, she moved this Court
by filing O.P.No.21086 of 2002.
2. After serving notice by special messenger on the
petitioner herein, who was the third respondent in that writ
petition, this Court passed an interim order dt.7.8.2002 declaring
that the petitioner therein is deemed to be in service. The Asst.
Educational Officer was directed to draw and disburse the salary
of the teacher as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIVA of
W.A.No. 2234 of 2008
2
K.E.R. The Government was given liberty to recover the salary from
the Manager. Finally, the appellant submits, the teacher re-joined the
school on 22.8.2003.
3. According to the appellant, since the suspension was only for
a period of two weeks, the teacher should have joined duty
immediately thereafter. But the official respondents and the teacher
maintained that there should be a further order from the Manager
ordering her reinstatement. The Asst. Educational Officer drew the
salary payable to the teacher as provided under Rule 67(8) of Chapter
XIV A of K.E.R.. Thereafter, steps were taken to recover the same
from the Manager. The proceedings of the Asst. Educational Officer in
this regard are Exts.P5 and P8 Later, on the motion of the Asst.
Educational Officer, the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), has
issued to the appellant Exts.P10 and P11 notices respectively under
Section 34 and 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Writ
Petition was filed challenging those two notices.
4. According to the Manager, the teacher on her own absented
from duty and therefore he was not liable to pay any salary for her
W.A.No. 2234 of 2008
3
omission. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
According to the learned Single Judge, if the teacher remained absent
unauthorisedly, the Manager could have taken action. The claim of
the Manager that she refused to join duty on her own was not accepted
by the learned Judge. In the result, the challenge against Exts.P10 and
P11 was repelled and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this Writ
Appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the very
same contentions he unsuccessfully canvassed before the learned
Single Judge. We notice that the Asst. Educational Officer has
directed the Manager to cancel the suspension order and reinstate the
teacher. She also approached this Court by filing O.P.21086 of 2002
claiming reinstatement and also for payment of salary. In that writ
petition, the appellant herein did not appear or contest. Therefore, the
reliefs sought in that writ petition were granted by an interim order.
Later, the writ petition was disposed of making the interim order
absolute. In the face of the judgment in that case, the present
contentions of the appellant cannot be entertained or considered. That
W.A.No. 2234 of 2008
4
judgment will bar such contentions. The Asst. Educational Officer has
acted only as permitted by this Court. In this case we further notice
that the appellant has not chosen to challenge the proceedings of the
Asst. Educational Officer. He only challenged the consequential
action of the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery). For that reason
also, the writ petition was not maintainable.
6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm