IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 15264 of 2007(P)
1. C.S.SHAMMI, H.S.A. (ENGLISH),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVT. OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
4. ABRAHAM MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY
5. C.S.BINDU, W/O. SURENDRAN,
6. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :24/05/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.15264 of 2007
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
Grievance of the petitioner who is now working as a High
School Assistant (English) in the school under the management
of respondent no.4 is that her seniority as Rule 51A claimant
under Chapter XIV A KER has been taken away by Ext.P7 order
passed by respondent no.6. At the outset, it may be noticed that
petitioner is entitled to challenge the above order before the
revisional authority. Learned counsel fairly submits that he is
prepared to do so. But his anxiety is that in the meanwhile the
direction contained in Ext.P7 may be implemented.
2. Since the statutory authority can resolve the dispute
relating to seniority between the petitioner and respondent
no.5, I am satisfied that the said issue need not be dealt with in
detail at this stage.
3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I do not
deem it necessary to issue notice either to respondent no.5 or to
the Manager. In my view, interest of the parties, particularly
W.P.(C)No.15264 of 2007
:: 2 ::
that of respondent no.5, can be adequately protected even
without issuing notice to them at this stage.
4. As mentioned earlier, petitioner has got a case that she
is a senior 51A claimant as compared to respondent no.5. It
appears that in Ext.P4 order the District Educational Officer had
approved the appointment of respondent no.5 for the period
from November 16, 2004 to March 31, 2005 only on daily wage
basis. This order was challenged by respondent no.5 before the
Deputy Director, who in turn had reversed the order of the
District Educational Officer as revealed from Ext.P7 order.
5. Petitioner contents that Ext.P7 order is per se illegal
and vitiated. I am of the view that the petitioner has to
necessarily avail of the statutory remedy. She has to approach
the appropriate authority and get her grievance redressed. If
the petitioner prefers a revision petition before the competent
authority as provided under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER
within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, the said authority shall entertain the same and hear
W.P.(C)No.15264 of 2007
:: 3 ::
and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of
receipt thereof. The authority concerned, the Director of Public
Instruction, shall ensure that respondent no.5 and the Manager,
apart from the petitioner are afforded sufficient opportunity to
be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Till such
time, a final decision is so taken, operation and implementation
of Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall send a copy
of the writ petition and a photocopy of the judgment to both the
manager as well as respondent no.5 by registered post for
information within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. He shall also produce a certified copy of the
judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before
respondent no.1 for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes