IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16905 of 2007(K)
1. GEETHAMONY.B.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (KOLLAM),
3. THE MANAGER, ADHICHANELLOOR PANCHAYAT
4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :05/06/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.16905 OF 2007
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.5 in the supplementary
list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for
selection to the post of H.S.A.(Malayalam). List expired in the
year 2001. It is the admitted position that petitioner was
advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment in
a school managed by a local statutory body, namely
Adhichanelloor Panchayat in Kollam district on an option
exercised by her. She has been working in the said school
ever since, for the last about six years. Apparently petitioner
now wants to come out of the aided school service and join
the Government service. According to the petitioner,
vacancies are available in `various Government schools’ in
Kollam district and she can be accommodated in one of those
vacancies.
2. There may be vacancies, but the fact that hundreds of
eligible selected candidates and other eligible teachers are
W.P.(C)No.16905 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
waiting for their turn for appointment and promotion as the
case may be, in these vacancies, cannot be disputed. The
mere fact that petitioner wants to taken out of the aided
school service to Government school service. She had
exercised her option way back in the year 2001. She cannot
have the cake and eat it too. At this belated stage, especially
long after expiry of the validity of the list, petitioner cannot be
allowed to annul the option exercised by her and to upset the
settled positions of seniority of teachers. Petitioner has not
been able to point out any statutory provision which would
come to her rescue. Though the request made by her appears
to be innocuous, I do not deem it just or proper to issue a
direction to respondent no.1 to consider Ext.P5
representation submitted by her.
There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly
dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes