IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10706 of 2009(G)
1. JOSSY A, W/O. FELIX K,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE MANAGER, ST. JOSEPH'S L.P.S.,
5. JEEN, L.P.S.A., ST. JOSEPH'S
For Petitioner :SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :01/04/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No. 10706 of 2009-G
------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Ayyappan Sankar, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the order that I
propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the
respondents 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School
Assistant (LPSA for short) in a leave vacancy during the period from
9.6.2003 to 16.2.2004. The Assistant Educational Officer,
Balaramapuram, declined to approve the appointment mainly for
the reason that the appointment of Smt.Binitha I.C has not been
approved. The Manager submitted a revision petition before the
Director of Public Instruction. By Ext.P6 order passed on
13.12.2006 the revision petition was dismissed. The petitioner has
now moved the Director of Public Instruction in Ext.P7 revision
pointing out that the appointment of the fifth respondent who was
appointed later is going to be approved and that if the fifth
respondent’s appointment is approved it will seriously prejudice her
W.P(C) No. 10706 of 2009-G 2
rights. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a
direction to the Director of Public Instruction to consider Ext.P7
revision petition and pass orders thereon.
The Manager had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the
Director of Public Instruction challenging Ext.P5. Rule 8A of
Chapter XIV A of the KER does not empower the Director of Public
Instruction to repeatedly exercise the power of revision in relation
to the same subject matter. Therefore the Director of Public
Instruction cannot entertain Ext.P7. The remedy of the petitioner if
he is aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6 is to move the Government under
Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the KER. Accordingly I dispose of this
writ petition with the observation that if the petitioner moves the
Government under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the KER within one
month from today, the Government shall entertain the said revision
petition and pass orders thereon after affording the petitioner, the
fourth respondent Manager and the fifth respondent teacher an
opportunity of being heard.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab PA to Judge