IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20992 of 2008(Y)
1. JYOTHI.R., W/O.SIVAPRASAD.B., AGED 38,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT EDUCATION
4. THE MANAGER, S.K.V.HIGH SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :11/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008
............................................................................
Dated this the 11th July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it
is necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent, Manager. Learned Government
Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. The petitioner is working as HSA (Malayalam) in the fourth respondent’s
school. She was appointed in a leave vacancy earlier and on the basis of preferential
claim, the petitioner was appointed in a regular vacancy with effect from 07.06.2000. By
Ext. P4 order dated 18.11.2000, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the
District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara It was also mentioned in Ext.P4 order that the
said order is subject to the result of W.A. 897 of 2000. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that W.A. 897 of 2000 relates to some management disputes and that
it has nothing to do with the appointment of the petitioner. It is stated that on
28.03.2008, the petitioner exercised her option for Higher Grade . Ext. P5 is the form
of option for Higher Grade. On receipt of Ext.P5, the third respondent issued Ext. P6
communication stating that the petitioner has approved service with effect from
20.11.2000. The said communication reads as follows:
“The teacher has approved service w.e.f. 20.11.2000 vide Order
No.B4-5758/00/K.Dis dtd.23.12.00 of the DEO. As such the
period reckoned w.e.f. 7.6.2000 to 19.11.00 is not admissible for
W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008
2
grade or other service benefits. As such her grade will due only
on 20.6.2008.”
It is submitted that the order approving appointment of the petitioner is Ext.P4 and it is
dated 18.11.2000. Therefore, what is noted in Ext. P6 communication that the order of
approval is dated 23.12.2000 is not correct, submits the learned counsel. It is also
submitted that Ext.P4 order itself makes it clear that the appointment of the petitioner
was approved with effect from 07.06.2000 and therefore the third respondent was not
justified in stating in Ext. P6 that the petitioner has approved service only with effect
from 20.11.2000. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 12.06.2008 to
the District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara pointing out these facts and requesting to
pass orders directing disbursement of salary for the period from 07.06.2000 to
19.11.2000 and also to reckon the aforesaid period for the purpose of grade promotion
as well as other service benefits. Ext.P7 representation is pending before the District
Educational Officer.
3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records
leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd
respondent to pass orders forthwith to consider the period from
7.6.2000 to 19.11.2000 for the grant of higher grade to the
petitioner.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd
respondent to forthwith disburse the salary to the petitioner for
the period from 7.6.2000 to 19.11.2000.
iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7
W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008
3
representation within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble
Court.
v) Declare that the petitioner is entitled for benefits of grade as
salary with effect from 7.6.2000.
vi) Issue such other writ, appropriate order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner
would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the District Educational Officer to dispose of
Ext. P7 representation dated 12.06.2008 within a time frame, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The submission is just and reasonable.
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not stated
when her probation was declared and that, that date is relevant for the purpose of
deciding the issue. This is also a matter to be considered by the District Educational
Officer while disposing of the Ext.P7 representation.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in
the following manner:
i) The District Educational Officer, Mavelikkara shall dispose of Ext. P7
representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager.
ii) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of
the Writ Petition before the District Educational Officer.
iii) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment by registered post to the
W.P.(C) No. 20992 OF 2008
4
fourth respondent (Manager) and shall produce proof of the same before the District
Educational Officer.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk