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
“(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
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue involved
W.P.(C) No. 17521/09
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
W.P.(C) No. 17521/09