Fathimath Raheena.V. vs The State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22108 of 2010(K)


1. FATHIMATH RAHEENA.V., LPSA, AMLPS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE MANAGER, AMLPS, KUNDILPARAMBA &

5. SHARANYA.M NAIR, LPSA, AMLPS,

6. SHAMEER, LPSA, AMLPS, PULLITHARA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :06/10/2010

 O R D E R
                 K.T.SANKARAN, J.
          ------------------------------
             W.P.(C).No.22108  OF 2010
          ------------------------------
      Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010


                     JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is that she was

appointed as LPSA with effect from 25.7.2007 in an

additional division post. The appointment of the

petitioner was not approved on the ground that

there was a ban imposed by the Government for

sanctioning additional division. It is stated that

the Manager filed Ext.P2 appeal before the District

Educational Officer and the same is pending. While

so, it is stated, the Manager appointed respondents

4 and 5, Sharanya M. Nair and Shameer, as LPSA in

the school. The contention of the petitioner is

that without recognizing the appointment of the

petitioner, the Manager should not have appointed

respondents 5 and 6. It is also stated that the

appointments of respondents 5 and 6 have not been

approved. The petitioner was not allowed to sign

in the attendance register by the Headmistress.

W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 2

2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in

the Writ Petition are the following:

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
the 4th respondent to execute the bond
stipulated in Ext.P6 and further direct to
resubmit the proposal before the 3rd respondent
and the 3rd respondent may be directed to
approve the appointment of the petitioner with
effect from 25.7.2007 onwards with all
consequential benefits. Or

b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ order or direction quashing
the appointment orders issued in favour of the
5th & 6th respondents from 1.6.2010 onwards and
direct the 4th respondent to appoint the
petitioner in any one of the vacancies and
forward the proposal for approval before the
3rd respondent.

c. Issue such other orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit to grant.”

3. It is submitted that GO(P) No.10/10/G.Edn.

dated 12.1.2010 issued by the Government is under

challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions. Therefore,

at this stage, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued

directing the Manager to execute the bond as

provided in GO(P) No.10/10.

4. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent

W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 3

submitted that appointment of the 5th respondent is

legal and valid.

5. Since Ext.P2 appeal is pending before the

District Educational Officer, Tirur. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the

time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if

the District Educational Officer is directed to

dispose of Ext.P2 appeal. The petitioner also

submits that an opportunity may be afforded to make

representation before the District Educational

Officer. The request is just and reasonable.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

a) The District Educational Officer shall

dispose of Ext.P2 appeal filed by the

Manager, as expeditiously as possible

and at any rate within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, after affording

W.P.(C).No.22108 OF 2010 4

an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner, the Manager and respondents

5 and 6.

b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of

the Writ Petition and copy of Ext.P7

which was produced along with

I.A.No.10028 of 2010, before the

District Educational Officer. The

petitioner as well as respondents 5 and

6 would be entitled to bring to the

notice of the District Educational

Officer the subsequent developments, so

that the District Educational Officer

would be able to not only dispose of

Ext.P2 appeal but also to issue

appropriate orders in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cms