IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9272 of 2004(D)
1. K.G.SUSHEELAMONI AMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
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.9272 of 2004
--------------------------------------
Dated 1st April, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Sewing Teacher in the
fifth respondent’s school on 4.06.1984. Since there was no sanctioned
post of Sewing Teacher against which such appointment could have been
made, the Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve that
appointment. The Manager carried the matter in appeal and ultimately
to the Government in revision. The Government by Ext.P1 order passed
on 7.3.1987 sanctioned a post of Sewing Teacher in the fifth
respondent’s school in relaxation of the rules with effect from the date of
the order. Ext.P1 specifically recites that it has been issued in relaxation
of the rules with effect from 7.3.1987 in order to enable the appointment
of the petitioner to be approved. Pursuant to Ext.P1, petitioner’s
appointment was approved with effect from 7.3.1987 to 31.3.1987 as
Part time Sewing Teacher. When the approval was not extended beyond
31.3.1987, she moved the Government. The Government thereupon
issued Ext.P2 order dated 31.7.1989 sanctioning one post of Part time
WP(C).No.9272/2004 2
Sewing Teacher in the fifth respondent’s school from 1988-89
onwards in relaxation of rules and also directed that the appointment
of the petitioner will be approved with effect from 1988-89
continuously.
3. Long thereafter, the petitioner again claimed that her
appointment during the period from 4.6.1984 till 7.3.1987 may be
approved. That request was declined by the Director of Public
Instruction by Ext.P3 order dated 9.6.2003. Exts.P2 and P3 are under
challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to approve
her appointment as Part time Sewing Teacher with effect from
4.6.1984. The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 essentially on two
grounds. The first contention is that she had worked as Sewing
Teacher from 1984 to 1987 and therefore, she is entitled to payment
of salary and allowances during the said period. She also contends
relying on Ext.P4 Government order that only Full time post of Sewing
Teacher can be sanctioned and therefore her appointment has to be
approved as Full time Sewing Teacher. The respondents have filed a
counter affidavit contending that the student strength did not warrant
even a Part time post and that the Government issued Exts.P1 and P2
orders, as a special case in relaxation of the rules with a view to
WP(C).No.9272/2004 3
ensure that the appointment of the petitioner as Sewing Teacher is
approved at least with effect from 7.3.1987.
4. The pleadings disclose that when the petitioner was
appointed on 4.6.1984, there was no sanctioned post of Sewing
Teacher. This was for the reason that the student strength did not
warrant the sanctioning of a Full time post or even a Part time post of
Sewing Teacher. As per the rules then in force, one post of Sewing
Teacher could have been sanctioned only if the strength of girl
students was 200 and above. As a matter of fact, the respondents
have stated that the student strength right from the institution of the
school did not warrant the sanctioning of the post of Sewing Teacher.
However, as a special case, the Government relaxed the rules and
directed the Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the
petitioner as Part time Sewing Teacher which was sanctioned in
relaxation of the rules. After Ext.P1 order was issued, the petitioner
again moved the Government in a petition dated 9.11.1988 seeking
approval of her appointment with effect from 4.6.1984 onwards
instead of 7.3.1987. That request was declined by Ext.P2 order dated
31.7.1989. She did not challenge Ext.P2 in time. She moved the
Director of Public Instruction long thereafter in the year 1999 seeking
the same relief. That was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 9.6.2003. In
WP(C).No.9272/2004 4
my opinion, in the light of Ext.P2 order passed by the Government, the
Director of Public Instruction could not have allowed her request.
5. Ext.P2 order was passed on 31.7.1989. Nearly 15 years
thereafter this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2. In the light of
the fact that the petitioner could continue in service only by virtue of
Ext.P2 which in fact was a concession extended to her, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P2 at this
distance of time. The challenge to Ext.P3 also cannot therefore be
entertained. As an officer subordinate to the Government, the Director
of Public Instruction could not have deviated from Ext.P2. I therefore
find no merit in this writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS