IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18285 of 2008(B)
1. P.K.JAYASREE , U.P.S.A,S.V.H.S.PONGALADY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE HEAD MASTER
For Petitioner :SRI.D.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.18285 & 36650 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of December, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in WP(C) No.18285/2008 is the Teacher and the
petitioner in WP(C) No.36650/2008 is the Manager of an aided
school.
2. Their grievance is against the order passed by the DEO
revising the staff fixation order for the year 2007-08. This order is
Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.18285/2008 and Ext.P1 in the other case.
Aggrieved by this order, the Manager has already filed revision
before the DPI, and the revision has been produced as Ext.P2 in
WP(C) No.36650/2008.
3. In the meanwhile, the teacher filed WP(C)
No.18285/2008, contending that the order revising the staff fixation
order has been passed without jurisdiction. In that writ petition, this
Court passed an interim order staying further proceedings by order
dated 25/06/2008. During pendency of the said order, notice of
hearing in the revision filed by the Manager was issued by the DPI,
and parties were also heard.
WP(C) No.18285 & 36650 of 2008
-2-
4. Meanwhile, orders consequential to Ext.P1 were issued
and that order was challenged by the Manager in WP(C) No.
29953/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7
judgment, directing that the proceedings will be kept in abeyance
until the revision is disposed of.
5. The Manager has now filed WP(C) No.36650/2008
aggrieved by Ext.P8, a notice of enquiry issued by the 1st
respondent.
6. While the grievance of the Teacher was regarding the
revision of the order revising the staff fixation order, the present
grievance of the Manager is pertaining to the notice of enquiry
issued by the DEO, which also is a consequence of the order
revising staff fixation order. In such circumstances, in order to give
a quietus to the whole controversy what is required to be done is
that the DPI should dispose of the revision, in respect of which the
parties have already been heard. Therefore, I direct that the DPI
shall pass orders on the revision filed by the Manager against the
order revising the staff fixation order pertaining to the year 2007-
08. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is
WP(C) No.18285 & 36650 of 2008
-3-
clarified that the contentions raised by both parties shall be dealt
with and that this Court has not dealt with the merits of the
contentions raised by the parties.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg