IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1430 of 2009(T)
1. LEJA ABRAHAM, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE MANAGER,
5. DR.P.V.JOSEPH, XIX/256, PUKKUNEL HOUSE,
6. SRI.PRASAD P.VARGHESE,
7. SRI.P.T.PAULOSE, HEADMASTER,
8. T.SMITHA, UPSA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 1430 OF 2009 T
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd February, 2009
JUDGMENT
The averments in the Writ Petition, in short, are the following: The
petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Social Science) in
Fr.Joseph Memorial Higher Secondary School, Puthuppady. The
petitioner was appointed on 9.7.2007 in the vacancy of Smt.Sosamma
K.A., who retired from service on 30.6.2007. The eighth respondent
(T.Smitha) raised an objection before the District Educational Officer
stating that she has a preferential claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA of
the Kerala Education Rules. It is also stated that there is management
dispute between respondents 5 and 6. The District Educational Officer
rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner, as
per Ext.P4 order dated 26.12.2007. The petitioner and Liza Zacharia
have filed Ext.P5 appeal before the Deputy Director of Education
challenging Ext.P4 order. Ext.P5 appeal is pending consideration.
2. The eighth respondent (T.Smitha) states that she was initially
appointed as UPSA on 5.6.2006 and subsequently, she was promoted as
H.S.A as per the appointment order dated 1.6.2007. The eighth
respondent filed W.P.(C) No.17588 of 2007, which was disposed of as per
W.P.(C) NO.1430 OF 2009 T
:: 2 ::
Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.11.2008, directing the District Educational
Officer to consider the proposal for approval of her appointment. The
District Educational Officer has not passed any order pursuant to the
direction in W.P.(C) No.17588 of 2007.
3. The only request made by the petitioner is that she also may be
directed to be heard by the District Educational Officer while considering
the proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent.
Learned counsel for the eighth respondent submitted that the petitioner as
such does not have any right to be heard in the matter of considering the
proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the District Educational
Officer had considered the objection raised by the eighth respondent while
considering the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioner.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that no
prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the petitioner is also
heard by the District Educational Officer while considering the proposal for
approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent. It would be open to
all the parties to put forward their respective contentions before the
District Educational Officer.
W.P.(C) NO.1430 OF 2009 T
:: 3 ::
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
a) The District Educational Officer shall afford an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner (Leja Abraham) while considering the
proposal for approval of the appointment of the eighth respondent
(T.Smitha) as per the direction in W.P.(C) No.17588 of 2007. It is
made clear that the petitioner shall not seek for any adjournment
of the matter before the District Educational Officer on the ground
that she was afforded an opportunity of being heard.
b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition, a copy of
the additional affidavit dated 27.1.2009 along with the Exhibits and
certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational
Officer.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/