IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22632 of 2006(T)
1. JAYAPRAMOD P., H.S.A. (MATHS),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 22632 OF 2006 (T)
====================
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, though several issues have been raised and
contentions have been urged, presently, the controversy has boiled down
to the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P14. Petitioner submits that
following the long leave without allowance availed of by his senior
appointee in the school, viz, Smt.Praveena, for the period from 01/04/2003
to 31/12/2007, he was appointed in that vacancy in pursuance to Ext.P11
judgment and that the same was approved by Ext.P10. According to him,
leave availed by Smt.Praveena was extended for a further period of 5
years by Ext.P12 Government Order and the Manager appointed him by
Ext.P13 order to that vacancy for the period upto 31/12/2012.
2. However, the DEO rejected approval on the ground that there
was a division fall in the staff fixation order for the period 2007-08 and
that another teacher Smt.K.P.Anitha, HSA (Physical Science) has been
accommodated against the vacancy of Smt.Praveena applying 1:40 ratio.
As already stated, petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P14 order by which
Ext.P13 appointment is now declined to be approved.
3. KER provides for an appellate remedy to the Deputy Director
WPC 22632/06
:2 :
of Education, the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner against
Ext.P14, the Manager of the School has already filed an appeal before the
3rd respondent and the same is still pending.
4. Now that the statutory authority is seized of the matter, it is
for that authority to consider the matter and pass orders thereof.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if
appeal dated 28/3/2008 filed by the Manager against Ext.P14 order is
pending before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall take up,
consider the same and pass orders thereon with notice to the Manager and
other affected parties.
This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 8
weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner may produce a
copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp