IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14844 of 2008(P)
1. SHINE SKARIA,PALATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
3. MANAGER,
4. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY
5. THE PRINCIPAL,ST.JOHN SYRIAN HIGHER
For Petitioner :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 14844 OF 2008 P
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as full time Menial in St.Johns Syrian
Higher Secondary School, of which, third respondent is the Manager. The
case of the petitioner is that with effect from 4.8.2006 he was appointed
by the then Manager as Laboratory Assistant, as per Ext.P1 appointment
order. The appointment was forwarded for approval. It is stated that
there was dispute regarding Managership. The said dispute was pending
in different courts. It is stated by the counsel that even now the dispute is
pending before the Division Bench. As per the judgment dated 5.10.2007
in Writ Petition No.14256 of 2007 and connected cases, the claim of the
Manager who appointed the petitioner was not accepted. It is stated that
the Manager who appointed the petitioner continued in office all through
out till 11.4.2007 and was discharging his functions as Manager of the
School. It is also stated by the petitioner that there was an interim order in
W.P.(C) No.14256 of 2007, as per which, that Manager continued in
office. According to the petitioner, the person who appointed the
petitioner in his capacity as Manager was competent to do so at the
relevant time. This contention is denied by Sri.Jaju Babu, who appears
for the person who claims to be the present Manager.
W.P.(C) NO.14844 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
2. On 11.2.2008, the Regional Deputy Director issued Ext.P3
communication to the Manager of the School. Ext.P3 order reads as
follows:
“On the basis of the judgment of the Hon. High Court
of Kerala as referred to 3 above, the proposals for the
approval of the appointments of Sinoby Mathew and Shine
Skaria as Lab Assistant in St.John’s Syrian HSS, Vadakara
under reference 1 & 2 above is returned herewith as
rejected.”
3. Challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P3(a) appeal dated
5.3.2008, before the Director of Higher Secondary Education. Ext.P3(a)
appeal is pending disposal. While so, on 13.2.2008, the Regional Deputy
Director issued Ext.P4 letter to the Manager of the School, directing the
Manager to revert the petitioner as full time menial.
4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order quashing Exts.P3 and P4 as
illegal and void.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writs, direction or orders commanding the 1st
respondent to forth with approve the
proposal/appointment made in Ext.P1 by
disposing of Ext.P3(a) appeal filed against Ext.P3.
iii) such other appropriate writs, directions or orders
which are fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case, including costs.”
W.P.(C) NO.14844 OF 2008
:: 3 ::
Since Ext.P3(a) appeal is pending against Ext.P3 order, relief (i) cannot
be granted. For the same reason, first part of relief (ii) also cannot be
granted. At the same time, it is just and necessary to issue a direction to
the Director of Higher Secondary Education to dispose of Ext.P3(a)
appeal filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner and all other affected parties.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first
respondent to dispose of Ext.P3(a) appeal dated 5.3.2008, filed by the
petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner,
the Manager and all other persons who have put forward the claim to be
the Manager of the School. The first respondent shall dispose of the
appeal within a period of three months.
At the time of admission, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4
were stayed. Since first respondent has to dispose of Ext.P3(a) appeal, it
is just and necessary to keep in abeyance Ext.P4 till the disposal of the
appeal by the first respondent.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/