IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19725 of 2008(W)
1. PRABHAMANI K.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.ELDHO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :14/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN,J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.19725 of 2008 W
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as Higher Secondary School Teacher
in Government Higher Secondary School, Kongorpilly. She joined service as
High School Assistant on 18.8.1993. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to
Government High School, Mannancherry in June, 1995 and Government Higher
Secondary School, Kalavoor and again to Government Higher Secondary
School, Kottayam. The petitioner had approached this Court in
O.P.No.16707/1997, challenging the transfer to Kottayam. It would appear that
an interim order of stay was passed and on the basis of the interim order, it is
stated that, she worked in Government Higher Secondary School, Kalavoor.
O.P.No.16707/1997 was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.11.1997,
wherein the challenge made by the petitioner was not accepted. However, in the
judgment it was made clear as follows:-
“…………It is made clear that
there will be no break in the service of the
petitioner. With these observations the
Original Petition is disposed of.”
WP(C) No.19725/2008
2
2. It is further stated that as per Ext.P2 judgment dated
18.12.1999 in O.P.No.32257/1999, Ext.P1 judgment was directed to be complied
with and as per Ext.P3 order dated 18.12.2000 the service of the petitioner was
regularised for the period from 22.9.1997 to 16.2.1998 as duty for all purposes
except for pay and allowances since the petitioner had no leave at her credit.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Director of Higher Secondary
Education has not taken any step so far to regularise the service of the petitioner
in spite of Ext.P3 order dated 18.12.2000, passed for seven years ago. The
petitioner apprehends that that may affect her prospects for promotion as
Principal. Ext.P4 is the proforma for declaration of probation. It was forwarded
along with Ext.P5 covering letter dated 11.2.2008. Petitioner sent Ext.P6
representation dated 8.2.2008 to the second respondent, the Director of Higher
Secondary Education. Ext.P6 is also not disposed of.
3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the
following:-
“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
compelling the 2nd respondent to consider
Exhibit P4 proforma and declare the probation
of the petitioner in the light of Exhibit P1 to P3
orders within a time limit and consider the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal
of Government Higher Secondary Schools in
the State.
WP(C) No.19725/2008
3
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
compelling the 2nd respondent to pass orders on
Exhibit P6 representation considering Exhibit P1
to P4 orders within a time limit to be stipulated
by this Hon’ble Court.
c) Issue such other writ, order
or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper to grant in the circumstances of the
case.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the second respondent to
consider Exts.P4 and P6 and pass appropriate orders after hearing the
petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the second
respondent will dispose of Exts.P4 and P6 within a reasonable time.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition
is disposed of as follows:-
(i) The second respondent, the Director of Higher Secondary
Education, shall dispose of Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 representations as expeditiously
as possible, and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner waives the right to be heard in person.
WP(C) No.19725/2008
4
(ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and
a certified copy of the judgment before the second respondent.
(iii) The petitioner would also be entitled to produce such
other materials and documents which are relevant and also make a
representation showing all the relevant details.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cks