High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Iqbal Puthalath vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 13 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Iqbal Puthalath vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 13 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31326 of 2010(M)


1. MUHAMMED IQBAL PUTHALATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE MANAGER, KOODALI HIGH SCHOOL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :13/10/2010

 O R D E R
                      K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.31326 of 2010
                 ---------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010



                           JUDGMENT

In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ

Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the

fourth respondent. Government Pleader takes notice for

respondents 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Urdu) in

Koodali High School from 30.7.2009 against the retirement

vacancy of P.P.Ravindran, who retired on 31.3.2009 as Full Time

HSA (Urdu). It is stated that P.P.Ravindran was appointed as

L.G.Urdu Teacher in the U.P. Section of the school in the year

1983; and in 1986, he was promoted as Full Time HSA (Urdu).

The post against which the petitioner was appointed was not

sanctioned by the District Educational Officer as per the Staff

Fixation Order 2009-2010 evidenced by Exhibit P2. Challenging

Exhibit P2, the petitioner filed Exhibit P8(a) revision under Rule

12E of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. The

WPC No.31326/2010 2

revision is pending disposal. Since Exhibit P8(a) was not

disposed of, the petitioner filed Exhibit P9 dated 20.9.2010

before the Government.

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

following :

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other

appropriate writ order or direction

commanding the third respondent to grant

approval to Exhibit P1 appointment order.

(ii) declare that the fourth respondent

school is entitled to have continuous sanction

for full-time post of High School Assistant

(Urdu).

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other

appropriate writ order or direction

commanding the first respondent to effectively

consider and pass appropriate orders upon

Exhibit P9 after affording an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner within a time

WPC No.31326/2010 3

limit.

(iv) pass such other order or direction

which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper to grant in the circumstances of the

case.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

since Exhibit P8(a) revision is pending before the Director of

Public Instruction, it is only proper that the Director of Public

Instruction considers the revision on the merits.

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

is disposed of as follows :

(a) The Director of Public Instruction shall consider and

dispose of Exhibit P8(a) revision, as expeditiously as

possible and at any rate, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

judgment, after affording an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner, the Manager and any other

affected party.

WPC No.31326/2010 4

(b) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the

judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the

Director of Public Instruction.

(c) The petitioner shall send a copy of the Writ Petition

and a copy of the judgment to the fourth respondent

Manager by registered post and the petitioner shall

produce proof of the same before the Director of

Public Instruction.

K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl