Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
K.C.Sivakumar vs The Manager on 28 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17521 of 2009(I)


1. K.C.SIVAKUMAR, SANSKRIT TEACHER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGER, A.U.P.SCHOOL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. STATE OF KERALA,

5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

                For Petitioner  :DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :28/01/2010

 O R D E R
                         S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                        ---------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No. 17521 OF 2009
                        --------------------------
              Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed as Full-time Sanskrit Teacher

in an aided school. The same was refused to be approved by the

educational authorities stating that there was no Full-time post of

Sanskrit Teacher in the school. Consequently the petitioner’s

appointment was approved only as a Part-time post. By G.O.(Ms)

No.43/78/G.Edn dated 13.4.78 for the purpose of approving the post

of Sanskrit Teacher as a Full-time post periods of group C subjects

could be diverted as Sanskrit periods. However the petitioner has

not been given the benefits of that Government order is the

contention raised in this writ petition. The petitioner seeks the

following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ,
order or direction to quash Exts.P5 and P10 orders
issued by the respondents.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the Controlling Officer to
grant full time status to the petitioner from the
Academic year 2006-2007 onwards by allowing
Group-C diversion.”

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue involved

W.P.(C) No. 17521/09
2

in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of a Division

Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2008.

3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the

judgment in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2008 itself, this Court has held

that that benefit is available only if there is no other Full-time Sanskrit

Teacher working in the school. But in the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the fourth respondent, I do not find any such objection

taken. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner

is entitled to the same benefit as granted by this Court in Writ

Appeal No.333 of 2008.

Accordingly Exts.P5 and P10 are quashed. The fourth

respondent is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the

light of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.333 of 2008 as expeditiously

as possible, at any rate, within three months form the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
vps

W.P.(C) No. 17521/09
3


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.156 seconds.