High Court Kerala High Court

Fathimath Raheena V vs The Director Of Public … on 4 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
Fathimath Raheena V vs The Director Of Public … on 4 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37923 of 2010(M)


1. FATHIMATH RAHEENA V.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

4. THE MANAGER, AMLPS,KUNDILPARAMBA &

5. SHARANYA M NAIR,

6. SHAMEER, LPSA, AMLPS, PULLITHARA

7. DEEPAK P, LPSA LEAVE SUBSTITUTE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :04/02/2011

 O R D E R
                 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                     -------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.37923 of 2010
                     -------------------------------
             Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011.

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner herein was appointed as LPSA, by the fourth

respondent, in a newly created vacancy in the AMLPS,

Kundilparamba and AMLPS, Pullithara under his management.

Ext.P1 is the copy of the appointment order. The appointment of

the petitioner was in the additional division vacancy during 2007-

08. In the light of the order issued by the Government as per

G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn dated 17.8.2005, the said division

was not sanctioned and therefore the appointment was rejected

by the third respondent.

2. It is stated that two resignation vacancies of LPSA’s

arose in AMLPS, Kundilparamba and Pullithara with effect from

13.7.2009 due to the resignation of one Babu M.V. and Pramod.A

for joining Government service. Both the above schools are

under the management of fourth respondent. According to the

petitioner, she is entitled to be appointed in one of the regular

2
W.P.(C).No.37923 of 2010

vacancies thus pointed out. The fourth respondent appointed

the fifth respondent in the vacancy of Pramod.A from 1.6.2010

onwards and the sixth respondent in the vacancy of Babu M.V.

from the same date. The seventh respondent was appointed in

the leave vacancy of one Abdulrahiman, in which the fifth

respondent was working. The details of such appointments

have been explained in para 5 of the writ petition. The petitioner

has filed a representation as Ext.P2, raising his claim. By

Ext.P3 the Government has passed an order to grant approval

of the teachers appointed in the additional division vacancies,

which obliges the manager to file a declaration to appoint

protected teachers in equal number of posts. Petitioner’s

grievance is now against Ext.P5 order whereby his claim was

rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that she has filed an

appeal before the Director of Public Instruction as Ext.P6(a)

along with a stay petition marked as Ext.P6(b).

3. In these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed,

seeking various reliefs. The grievance voiced by the petitioner

mainly is that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed and the

3
W.P.(C).No.37923 of 2010

Manager even though is bound by the Government order Ext.P3,

no action has been taken on the basis of the Government order

so far.

4. Inspite of receipt of notice, none of the party

respondents have appeared. Therefore it is only proper to direct

the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6(a) revision with

a notice to all the parties concerned. Learned counsel for the

petitioner prays for a further direction to the Director of Public

Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram, to consider the petition filed by

the petitioner as Ext.P6(b) before the appeal is disposed of. The

petitioner seeks for an interim order, in the light of the fact that, a

proposal for the approval of appointment of the respondents 5 to

7, is pending before the Education Officer concerned.

5. There will be a direction to the Director of Public

Instruction to take a decision on the revision petition Ext.P6(a)

after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 within a

period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment. The stay petition Ext.P6(b) if pending will be

considered and appropriate orders will be passed within a period

4
W.P.(C).No.37923 of 2010

of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this

judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of writ petition

along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. No costs.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge
ami/