IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 303 of 2009()
1. JASMINE MARY CHACKO, KARAMPENTATHU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
3. MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :04/03/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 303 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated 4th March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioner is the appellant. She was appointed as Higher
Secondary School Teacher (Computer Application) by the 3rd respondent
Manager in St.Behanan’s Higher Secondary School, Vennikulam. She is
taking classes in Computer Application for the Plus Two course (known as
Commerce Batch). Originally, one of the subjects of the said course was
Mathematics. The Manager changed that subject as Computer Application
and to teach the said subject, the appellant was appointed. The change of
subject for the aforementioned Commerce Batch was sanctioned by the
Government by Ext.P5 order dated 25.5.2004, subject to the stipulation
that there shall not be any additional financial commitment to the
Government, as a result of the said change. The effect of that order was that
the appellant’s appointment was not approved. If it is approved, evidently,
there will be additional financial commitment to the State. Her claim in this
WA 303/2009 2
regard was rejected by Ext.P7 order, by the Director of Higher Secondary
Education. Thereafter, as per the direction of this Court, the Government
considered the said claim of the appellant and rejected it by Ext.P8 order
dated 16.3.2007. Challenging those orders, the Writ Petition was filed. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. This Writ Appeal is filed,
seeking reversal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
2. But, as long as Ext.P5 remains in force, the appellant cannot
succeed. Realising the said fact, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
prayed for withdrawal of the Writ Appeal without prejudice to the right of
the appellant to move the Government for modification of the condition in
Ext.P5, which stands in her way. The appellant has also produced
Annexures II and III, the representations filed by her Manager before the
Government, seeking modification of the aforementioned condition. She
prays, she/her Manager may be given liberty to pursue those
representations.
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader on the above point.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the rights,
if any, of the appellant or her Manager to pursue the aforementioned
WA 303/2009 3
representations, if they are received and pending before the Government.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
nm/