IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12883 of 2007(H)
1. K.M.JAMEELAMMA, W/O.C.A.IBRAHIM RAWTHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
5. THE HEADMASTER, DEVASWOM BOARD
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 12883 OF 2007 (H)
====================
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Since 15/7/94, petitioner was working as a Part Time Arabic Teacher
and from 15/7/77 onwards, as a full time teacher.
2. The issue in this writ petition arises out of Ext.P3 staff fixation
order for the year 2006-07, by which, a post which was abolished in the
year 2003-04, was again sanctioned. However, it would appear that based
on the direction of the Deputy Director, the DEO has issued Ext.P4 order
abolishing the post on the ground that there were only 9 students. It is
challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed.
3. The main contention urged is that the DEO could not have
reviewed his order and that the order passed was without giving
opportunity to the affected parties. Counsel also relied on Rule 12 C of
Chapter XXIII KER in support of this plea. It is stated that the petitioner
happened to be the victim of Ext.P4 for the reason that the Manager had
not disclosed the fact that a teacher junior to the petitioner was working in
DBLPS, Thirumullavaram, who was not entitled to protection. If that be
so, as rightly contended by the petitioner, it was that teacher who ought to
have been retrenched and the petitioner ought to have been transferred
WPC 12883/07
:2 :
and accomodated in her place. However, subsequent to Ext.P4, Manager
has issued Ext.P6 retrenching the aforesaid junior most teacher, then
working in DBLPS, Thirumullavaram effective from 15/7/06 and posting the
petitioner in that place.
4. Presently, therefore, petitioner is aggrieved by that part of
Ext.P4 which directs that excess payment received by her shall be
recovered. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that she has not
been paid for the period 1/3/2007 to 17/4/2007.
5. Now that it has come out that there was a teacher junior to
the petitioner, who has since been retrenched, there is no question of the
petitioner having received any excess payment, requiring to be recovered
from her as ordered in Ext.P4. True that excess payment has been made
by the Government and necessarily that is to be recovered. But in the
aforesaid factual background, petitioner has to be exonerated of the
liability and it will be open to the Department to take recourse to the
provisions of the KER for recovering such excess payment either from the
Manager or from the junior most teacher, whoever is liable.
6. In view of Ext.P6 and as the right of the petitioner for
continuance has been recognised, necessarily, petitioner is also entitled to
be paid for the period from 1/3/2007 to 17/4/2007 as well.
WPC 12883/07
:3 :
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the
petitioner is due for retirement on 31/3/2009. It is also pointed out that in
view of the confusion that was prevailing, her service has not been
regularised, increments have not been granted, DA arrears have not been
paid and the pension papers also are not being processed. Now that I
have held that the petitioner ought not have been visited with the
consequence mentioned in Ext.P4, necessary orders have to be passed by
the 1st respondent, remedying the grievance referred to above. This shall
be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of
production of a copy of this judgment.
8. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st
respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp