IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33235 of 2010(D)
1. LISSY MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :08/11/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 33235 OF 2010 D
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as UPSA in St.Mary’s High School,
Palliport. Anticipating reduction of posts in 2010-2011, the Manager
ordered termination of the services of the petitioner as per Ext.P3
order dated 5.8.2010. Though the petitioner made a request to the
Manager to allow her to continue in service even without salary, that
request was not acceded. The District Educational Officer issued
Ext.P5 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, by which, one post of
UPSA and one post of LPSA were reduced, applying the teacher-
student ratio of 1:45. Later, the Government issued Ext.P6 order,
G.O.(P) No.191/10/G.Edn. dated 22.9.2010, extending the benefit of
1:40 teacher-student ratio. The contention of the petitioner is that if
1:40 teacher-student ratio is applied, there will be no reduction of
post and therefore, the petitioner could continue in service. Pointing
out these facts, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated
20.10.2010 to the District Educational Officer requesting to revise the
staff fixation order for 2010-2011. The grievance of the petitioner is
that no order has been passed on Ext.P7 representation by the
District Educational Officer.
W.P.(C) NO.33235 OF 2010 D
:: 2 ::
2. Though several reliefs are claimed in the Writ Petition, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, it
would be sufficient if the District Educational Officer is directed to
dispose of Ext.P7 representation expeditiously.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is
disposed of directing the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam
(second respondent) to consider and dispose of Ext.P7
representation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that no notice
need be issued to the petitioner by the District Educational Officer as
the petitioner waives her right to be heard in the matter. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy
of the judgment before the District Educational Officer.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/