IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4079 of 2009(I)
1. GIRIJA R,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
6. THE MANAGER, ABUP SCHOOL,
7. SOUMYA V, D/O. VELUKUTTY C.A.,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/02/2009
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
==================
W.P.(C) No.4079 of 2009
=====================
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had formerly worked as Hindi Teacher in A.B.U.P.
School managed by the sixth respondent during the period from
2.7.2003 to 17.9.2003. A vacancy of Sanskrit Teacher arose in the sixth
respondent’s school on 31.3.2008. The petitioner who possesses the
qualifications for appointment as Sanskrit Teacher claimed appointment
in the said vacancy as a Rule 51A claimant. The sixth respondent
however appointed the seventh respondent as Sanskrit Teacher. That
appointment was not approved by the Assistant Educational Officer,
Kuzhalmannamm who by Ext.P2 order dated 14.9.2008 directed the
Manager to appoint the petitioner as Sanskrit teacher. The Manager filed
an appeal before the District Educational Officer challenging Ext.P2 and
the seventh respondent filed a revision petition before the Director of
Public Instruction challenging Ext.P2.
2. The petitioner had in the meanwhile filed W.P.(C) No.16885 of
2008 in this Court seeking implementation of Ext.P2. By Ext.P3 judgment
delivered on 24.11.2008 this Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a
direction to the District Educational Officer to consider and pass orders
on the appeal filed by the Manager after hearing all the parties. This
WP(C) 4079/09 -: 2 :-
Court further directed that since the appellate authority has been
directed to consider the appeal, the revisional authority, namely, the
Director of Public Instruction need not consider the revision petition
filed by the seventh respondent.
3. As directed by this Court, the District Educational Officer heard
the parties and passed Ext.P4 order dated 12.1.2009 upholding the
appointment of the seventh respondent. The petitioner has aggrieved
thereby filed Ext.P5 revision petition before the Secretary to Government,
General Education Department under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the
Kerala Education Rules. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges
Ext.P4 and prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
respondents 1 to 6 to appoint her as Full-time Sanskrit Teacher in the
vacancy that arose on 31.3.2008 in the place of the seventh respondent.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for the seventh respondent. The learned counsel appearing for
the seventh respondent submits that as the petitioner has invoked a
statutory remedy available to her, this Court cannot at this stage
entertain this Writ Petition and adjudicate upon the disputes involved in
the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner has already invoked the revisional
jurisdiction of the Government and challenged Ext.P4 order passed by
the District Educational Officer by filing Ext.P5 revision petition, I am of
the opinion that the petitioner should pursue the said remedy instead of
WP(C) 4079/09 -: 3 :-
seeking the intervention of this Court at this stage to pronounce on the
validity of Ext.P4.
I accordingly dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the
Secretary to Government, General Education Department to pass final
orders on Ext.P5 revision petition after notice to and affording the
petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 an opportunity of being heard. Final
orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the date on
which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before
the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. I make it
clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival
contentions and that it will be open to the Secretary to Government to
decide the issue in accordance with law. It is also clarified that in the
meanwhile if the seventh respondent’s appointment is approved, it will
be subject to the order passed by the Government on Ext.P5.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 26/2