IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26286 of 2008(D)
1. RAJANI.T.S, H.S.S.T.(JUNIOR)ECONOMICS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR HIGHER
4. THE MANAGER, S.V.H.S.SCHOOL, PALEMAD.PO,
5. THE PRINCIPAL, S.V.H.S.SCHOOL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.S.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/12/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26286/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P2, the
proceedings dated 8.8.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Ext.P1 is the order issued appointing the petitioner as HSST
(Junior) Economics in the 4th respondent’s school. The
appointment was made with effect from 24.1.2005 and was
also approved. Petitioner was working as such and salary
was also paid till August, 2005. However, in August, 2005,
on the basis that Ext.P2 order was issued by the 3rd
respondent, the Manager did not pay salary to the
petitioner.
2. Ext.P2 is an order dated 8.8.2005 issued by the 3rd
respondent referring to Ext.P3 Government Order dated
29.11.2002, cancelling the approval granted to the
WP(c).No.26286/2008 2
petitioner’s appointment. It is this order which is under
challenge in this writ petition.
3. Counsel mainly raised two contentions. One is that,
much earlier to Ext.P2, the staff fixation in the school was
revised by Ext.P4 order dated 7.4.2005 and that in terms of
Ext.P5, three posts of Teachers in Economics were
sanctioned and that it was without considering Exts.P4,
Ext.P2 order was issued on 8.8.2008. Yet another contention
that is raised is by referring to Ext.P15. As seen from
Ext.P2, the approval cancelled was not only that of the
petitioner but also was of one Smt. C. Devayani, HSST
(Junior) Maths. During the pendency of this writ petition,
Smt. Devayani had moved the Government and the
Government issued Ext.P5 order dated 16.10.2008 directing
that Smt. Devayani be retained as Supernumerary with
effect from 2003-04 academic year. Petitioner submits that
she is also entitled to similar benefits
WP(c).No.26286/2008 3
4. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that, there is not even a
reference to Ext.P4, the revised staff strength. that apart,
the other teacher who is affected by Ext.P2 is ordered to be
retained as supernumerary as per Ext.P5. If everything is
similar there is no reason why the petitioner should be
discriminated. I am satisfied that the matter needs to be
reconsidered by the 3rd respondent.
Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner
to file a representation to the 3rd respondent claiming the
benefit of Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 and if such representation is
filed within 2 weeks from today, the 3rd respondent shall
consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously
as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before
the 3rd respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.26286/2008 4