Reshma .K. vs The State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2924 of 2009(W)


1. RESHMA .K.,AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

5. THE MANAGER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :28/01/2009

 O R D E R
                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.2924 of 2009
                 ---------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School

Assistant with effect from 1.6.2007 in Andalur Senior Basic

School, Palayad, in Kannur District as per Exts.P1 and P2

appointment orders. The Manager submitted proposal for

approval. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the

approval. On appeal, the District Educational Officer confirmed

the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and

dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P3 order. Though the Manager

moved the Director of Public Instruction, as per Ext.P4 order, the

DPI confirmed the orders passed by the District Educational

Officer. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the Manager has filed Ext.P6

Revision and the petitioner has filed Ext.P6(a) Revision before

the first respondent. Exts.P6 and P6(a) Revisions are pending.

2. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 circular whereby the

Director of Public Instruction accorded sanction exempting the

uneconomic schools from maintaining the minimum strength of

WPC No.2924 /2009 2

pupils. The petitioner has relied on the said circular in Ext.P6(a)

Revision.

3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are the

following:

“(i) Call for the records relating to Exts.P3 and P4 and
quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ
of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction commanding the respondents to
approve the appointment of the petitioner covered by
Exts.P1 and P2.

(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
Exts.P6 and P6(a) after affording an opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner within a time 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. For the time being, the petitioner confines the relief

to relief No.(iii).

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

is disposed of as follows:

(i) The first respondent shall consider and pass orders on

Ext.P6 and P6(a) Revisions, as expeditiously as

WPC No.2924 /2009 3

possible and at any rate within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after affording an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner and the Manager.

(ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ

Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the

first respondent.

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

and copy of the judgment to the 5th respondent

(Manager) by registered post and shall produce the

postal receipt before the first respondent.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl