IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21401 of 2006(W)
1. PRIYA JACOB,
... Petitioner
2. ANNAMMA ZACHARIAH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HSE, HOUSING BOARD
3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
4. NANCY VARGHESE,
5. JACOB JOHN, HSST CATHOLICATE HSS
For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
.......................
W.P.(C)s.21401, 21620 & 21474 of 2006
.......................
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking to challenge
the order passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education,
a copy of which is marked as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C).21620/2006. In
view of the subsequent developments, the order has lost its
relevance and a decision on the merits of the controversy is not
necessary.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners in these cases,
seven in number, who were working as Higher Secondary School
Teachers, were promoted and appointed as Principal of Higher
Secondary Schools. The same was challenged by respondents 4
and 5 in W.P.(C).21620/2006, who are also parties in the other
cases. The Director of Higher Secondary Education set aside the
orders of promotion and directed fresh selection. It is this order
which is under challenge.
3. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the rule
governing appointment to the post of Principal itself has been
amended with effect from 6.1.2006. Applying the rule as
W.P.(C).21401/06 & Connected Cases
2
amended, the Manager has promoted the petitioners herein and
posted them as Principals which has also been approved as per
Ext.R3(a) to E3(c) in W.P.(C).21620/2006 and similar orders
have been passed in the case of other petitioners.
4. As far as respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C).21620/2006 at
whose instance the impugned orders were issued, are
concerned, the 4th respondent admittedly is unqualified and
hence can have no grievance. Insofar as the 5th respondent is
concerned, an understanding has been arrived at between
himself and the Manager that in the next arising vacancy, he
will be accommodated. This arrangement has been accepted by
the 5th respondent also.
5. In view of the above, these writ petitions are closed but
however quashing Ext.P7 order in W.P.(C).21620/2006, referred
to above.
6. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on
merits on the contentions of either of the parties.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs