IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 23626 of 2007(K)
1. JOJI K.JOHN, HSST CHEMISTRY,
... Petitioner
2. SANITHA ELIZEBETH SUNNY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
3. THE MANAGER, ST. MARY'S HSS,
For Petitioner :SRI.BENOY THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :02/08/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 23626 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 2ndday of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners claim that they were appointed by respondent No.3/ the
manager, in St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School, Manarcadu, Kottayam as
Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior) in Chemistry and Mathematics
respectively with effect from September 25, 2006.
2. It is contended by them that the above appointment was made
pursuant to the selection made by the Committee, which included a
Government nominee also. The proposal for approval of appointment of
petitioners along with that of another teacher namely, Smt. Merlyn John,
who was appointed as HSST (Junior) in Chemistry, was forwarded to the
Director of Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education at
Ernakulam, has by Ext.P5 communication dated July 2, 2007, informed the
Manager that the appointments made by him were in clear violation of the
prevailing Government Orders particularly in G.O.(MS)No.
398/2002/G.Edn. dated November 29, 2002. Various contentions have
been raised by the petitioners in support of their plea that the manager was
fully justified in making the appointments. Particular reference has been
made to the staff fixation order, issued by the Director.
WPC NO.23626/07 Page numbers
4. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with those contentions at this
stage in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioners at the Bar. He submits that petitioners have preferred Ext.P8
revision petition before respondent No.1 against Ext.P5 order highlighting
all the relevant aspects of the issue. The limited prayer is to issue a
direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision on Ext.P8 expeditiously.
In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed
of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P8 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that the petitioners, the
manager and all others who are likely to be affected by any order that may
be passed by him, are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before
any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioners shall produce a certified
copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before
respondent No.1 for compliance.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.23626/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
JUDGMENT
1ST MARCH, 2007
WPC NO.23626/07 Page numbers