IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3796 of 2009(B)
1. SOMAN SAM T, FULL TIME MENIAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE MANAGER, T.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL,
5. REJILAL K.R., DRAWING TEACHER
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/02/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.3796 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as Full Time Menial in
T.M.V.H.S. School, Perimpilavu as per Ext.P2 appointment order
dated 4.7.2005. The said appointment was approved by the
District Educational Officer. It is stated that while continuing his
service as Full Time Menial, the petitioner passed the Kerala
Government Certificate Examination in Fine Arts on 29.7.2008
as evidenced by Ext.P3 certificate. The petitioner contends that
with effect from that date, he is fully qualified to be appointed as
Drawing Teacher in accordance with the qualification prescribed
under Chapter XXXI of the Kerala Education Rules. A regular
vacancy of Drawing Teacher arose in the school on 1.4.2008 due
to the retirement of a Drawing Teacher. The Manager appointed
the 5th respondent as Drawing Teacher on 14.7.2008 in that
vacancy. Since the appointment was made only after the
commencement of the academic year, the appointment of the
fifth respondent was approved only on daily wage basis. After
WPC No.3796/2009 2
the appointment of the fifth respondent, it is stated that the
petitioner got qualified on 29.7.2008. The case of the petitioner
is that he is a Rule 43 claimant for being appointed as Drawing
Teacher in preference to the 5th respondent. Pointing out these
facts, the petitioner filed a representation dated 22.10.2008
before the Director of Public Instruction. As per the order in
W.P.(C) No.32110/08, the Director of Public Instruction was
directed to consider and dispose of the said representation. As
per Ext.P7 order dated 8.1.2009, the Director of Public
Instruction rejected the representation submitted by the
petitioner and upheld the approval of the appointment of the
fifth respondent. Challenging Ext.P7 order, the petitioner has
filed Ext.P8 Revision before the Government. Ext.P8 Revision is
pending disposal.
2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ
Petition are the following:
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order calling for
the records leading to Exts.P6 and P7 and
quashing the same.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the first respondent to consider and pass ordersWPC No.3796/2009 3
on Ext.P8 revision petition filed by the
petitioner forthwith after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
respondents 4 and 5.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing
the fourth respondent to promote the petitioner
as Drawing Teacher with effect from 1.8.2008.
(iv) and grant such other and further reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case including costs.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for
the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if relief No.(ii) is
granted. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8
Revision would be disposed of without delay.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ
Petition is disposed of as follows:
(i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose
of Ext.P8 Revision dated 20.1.2009, as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner, the Manager and the fifth
WPC No.3796/2009 4
respondent.
(ii) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of
the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition
before the first respondent.
(iii) The petitioner shall send copy of the judgment
and a copy of the Writ Petition to respondents 4
and 5 separately by registered post and shall
produce proof thereof before the first
respondent.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl