Leena.K.G vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 7 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20223 of 2008(G)


1. LEENA.K.G, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.K.K.GEORGE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S A.L.P.SCHOOL,

6. THE HEADMISTRESS, ST.JOSEPH'S A.L.P.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :07/07/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.T. SANKARAN,J.
                          --------------------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No.20223 of 2008 G
                          --------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008.

                                 J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as Lower Primary School Assistant in

St.Joseph’s A.L.P. School, Aloor in Thrissur District. She was appointed as per

Ext.P1 appointment order dated 2.6.2004, which was duly approved by the

Assistant Educational Officer. The petitioner is continuing in service from

2.6.2004 onwards.

2. While so, it is stated that the Super Check Cell Officer

visited the school on 10.11.2006 for verifying the attendance of the pupils in the

school, for the academic year 2006-2007. The Super Check Cell Officer again

visited the school on 7.2.2007. Based on the report of Super Check Cell, the

Director of Public Instruction issued an order dated 2.5.2007, provisionally

reducing two posts of Lower Primary School Assistant for the academic year

2006-2007. Later, the Director of Public Instruction has passed Ext.P2 final

order confirming the provisional order. It is also stated in Ext.P2 order thus-

“14. The Dy. Director of

Education, Thrissur and the Asst. Ednl. Officer,

Kunnamkulam will examine the eligibility of

protection including 1:40 ratio and extent the

WP(C) No.20223/2008
2

benefit, if any, to the affected teachers and

issue necessary orders. They will also take

further action to recover the amount from the

Headmistress under intimation to the

undersigned and the Super Check Cell Officer,

Kozhikode.”

3. The case of the petitioner is that if 1:40 ratio is

applied, she could continue as Lower Primary School Assistant in the school for

the academic years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. It is stated that the Manager

filed an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education and a representation was

also made by him to the Director of Public Instruction, respectively marked as

Exts.P7 and P8. It is also stated that Exts.P7 and P8 are pending disposal.

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 revision dated

31.5.2008, before the Government challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the

Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P10 revision is pending disposal.

5. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the

following:-

“(a) issue a writ of

mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction commanding the Assistant

Educational Officer to revise Exhibit P-3 staff

WP(C) No.20223/2008
3

fixation order in terms of the direction

contained in Exhibit P-2 Order, applying 1:40

teacher students ratio

(b) issue a writ of mandamus

or other appropriate writ order or direction

commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively

consider and pass appropriate orders upon

Exhibit P-10 after affording an opportunity of

being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit,

keeping in abeyance coercive steps.

(c) pass such other order or

direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper to grant in the circumstances of the

case.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for

the time being the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued as

mentioned in relief No.(b). Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P10

revision filed by the petitioner will be disposed of by the first respondent

expeditiously.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition

is disposed of in the following manner:-

WP(C) No.20223/2008
4

(i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P10

revision filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner, the Manager of the school and any other affected party, if any, as

expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three months.

(ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and

a certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.

(iii) Since notice is not issued to respondents 5 and 6, the

petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment to respondents 5 and 6 separately

by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the first

respondent.

(iv) Pending disposal of Ext.P10 revision, no coercive steps

shall be taken against the petitioner for refund of any amount drawn by her as

salary and allowances.

K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cks