IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9992 of 2009(T)
1. SIMCY.T.S, W/O.JASAN, 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MANJU K. MOHAN,D/O.MOHAN KUMAR,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
6. THE MANAGER,A.U.P.SCHOOL, PARAKKAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :27/03/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.9992 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated 27th March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri.A.J.Varghese, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 5. In the nature of the order that I
propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the sixth
respondent.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Upper Primary School
Assistants `(UPSA’ for short) on 2.6.2008 and 23.6.2008 respectively as
per Exts.P1 and P1(a) appointment orders issued by the sixth
respondent. They were appointed against vacancies anticipated to arise
during the academic year 2008-09. Though in Ext.P3 staff fixation
order passed on 30.08.2008 for the academic year 2008-09, the
Assistant Educational Officer had noticed that the student strength
warranted sanction of one additional division with additional post in
Standards V and VI, due to the ban on appointments issued by the
Government on 17.8.2005, the additional divisions and posts were not
sanctioned. For that reason, by Exts.P9 and P9(a) orders passed on
7.3.2009, the Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve the
appointment of the petitioners.
WP(C).No.9992/2009 2
3. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 staff fixation order to the extent it
declined to sanction additional divisions and posts, the Manager moved
the District Educational Officer in appeal. That appeal was rejected by
Ext.P5 order dated 23.1.2009. Since the petitioners are persons
directly affected by Ext.P3 staff fixation order and Ext.P5 appellate
order, they moved the Director of Public Instruction by submitting
Exts.P7 and P7(a) revision petitions invoking the power of the Director
of Public Instruction under Rule 12E(3) of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala
Education Rules. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Exts.P9
and P9(a) orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer declining
to approve their appointments and also seek a direction to the Director
of Public Instruction to dispose of Exts.P7 and P7(a) revision petitions
after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4. Exts.P9 and P9(a) disclose that the Assistant Educational
Officer declined to approve the petitioners’ appointments on the
ground that vacancies do not exist. Therefore, unless Ext.P3 staff
fixation order is set aside or modified, the petitioners cannot claim
approval of their appointments. The petitioners are therefore persons
aggrieved by Ext.P3 staff fixation order. They have aggrieved by
Ext.P3 staff fixation order and Ext.P5 appellate order passed by the
WP(C).No.9992/2009 3
District Educational Officer, moved the Director of Public Instruction in
revision as contemplated in Rule 12E(3) of Chapter XXIII of the K.E.R.
Since the petitioners have invoked a remedy available under law and
as the appointments relate to the academic year 2008-09 which is
nearing its end, I am of the opinion that the Director of Public
Instruction should expeditiously consider Exts.P7 and P7(a) revision
petitions and pass orders thereon. In these circumstances, I dispose
of this writ petition with the following directions:
(1) The Director of Public Instruction shall within
three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment dispose of Exts.P7 and P7(a)
revision petitions after notice to and affording the
petitioners and the sixth respondent Manager a
reasonable opportunity of being heard and after
orders are passed in the matter, communicate
copies thereof to the petitioners and the sixth
respondent expeditiously.
(2) I further direct that in the event of Exts.P7 and
P7(a) revision petitions being allowed, the Assistant
Educational Officer shall re-open the proposals
WP(C).No.9992/2009 4
submitted by the Manager to approve the
appointments of the petitioners and pass orders
thereon in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS