IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 1164 of 2001(L)
1. D.LASITHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.C.KHALID
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :04/09/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.No.1164 OF 2001
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1
and 2.
2. This writ petition is filed in 2001. The petitioner challenges
Ext.P6 decision of the Deputy Director rejecting her claim on
the basis of Rule 51 A of Chapter XIV A KER, for placement.
Ext.P6 is a speaking order.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the third respondent quite in extenso on the merits of
the matter. But during the course of hearing, it has been noticed
that notice of this writ petition has not been served on the 4th
respondent, the rival teacher.
4. Having regard to the disputed issues of facts raised,
including the questions whether the petitioner had submitted a
OP.1164/01
Page numbers
relinquishment letter; whether the petitioner could have
relinquished any right referable to Rule 51 A, Chapter XIV A,
KER going by the decisions of this Court; whether the petitioner,
who admittedly left the service on an alleged relinquishment,
had a right to come back after the 4th respondent’s appointment;
whether the 4th respondent was appointed with notice to the
petitioner in terms of Note 2 to Rule 51 A Chapter XIV A KER as
contended by the Manager and still further, as to how the rights
of parties have to be determined in terms of the KER, need to be
resolved to give a quietus to this litigation.
5. In the aforesaid context, I do not deem it appropriate to
overrule the contention of the third respondent Manager that the
petitioner has a statutory remedy against Ext.P6 by way of a
revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER, particularly when
the Government is the highest authority and when the statutory
framework would have the appropriate mechanism to consider
the rival contentions as raised, after hearing the 4th respondent
Smt.Mini also, if deems necessary.
OP.1164/01
Page numbers
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, though this writ petition
had been pending for nearly six years now, I am constrained to
dispose it off by relegating the parties to the Government in the
event of the petitioner filing a revision under Rule 92 as
aforesaid, within a period of one month from now. If such
revision is received, the Government will endeavour to dispose of
the matter finally after hearing the necessary parties, including
the petitioner, the Manager and Smt.Mini, if needed, as also any
other teacher, if necessary. Such decision shall be taken within
an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the
aforesaid revision or a certified copy of this judgment, whichever
is later.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.
OP.1164/01
Page numbers
=======================
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
O.P.NO.1164 OF 2001
JUDGMENT
4th SEPTEMBER, 2007.
=======================