IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11427 of 2009(W)
1. THE MANAGER
... Petitioner
2. K.P.KRISHNA DAS
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4. SMT. P.VIJAYAKUMARI
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :07/04/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.11427 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated 7th April, 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 3. In the nature of the order that I
propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the fourth
respondent.
2. The first petitioner is the Manager of an Aided Upper
Primary School. The second petitioner is a Peon appointed by the first
petitioner in his school in the vacancy that arose on 1.9.2008. Late
P.Gopalan, the husband of the fourth respondent was a Drawing teacher
in the first petitioner’s school. He passed away on 4.6.2008.
Thereupon, the fourth respondent’s son Sri.Sruthin Gopan filed an
application for appointment under the compassionate employment
scheme. That application was rejected by the Manager by Ext.P2 letter
dated 1.9.2008 on the ground that he had not attained 18 years of age
as on 1.9.2008. The vacancy of Peon was thereafter filled up by
appointing the second petitioner. The petitioners state that the
application submitted by Sri.Sruthin Gopan was accompanied by Ext.P5
consent letter submitted by the fourth respondent wherein she had
WP(C).No.11427/2009 2
stated that she has no objection to her son being appointed under the
dying-in-harness scheme. It appears, after the Manager declined the
application submitted by the fourth respondent’s son for appointment
under the dying-in-harness scheme, the fourth respondent staked a
claim for the post of Peon before the Assistant Educational Officer,
Alathur. The first petitioner’s views were thereupon sought and she
submitted Ext.P3 reply and a hearing in the matter was also held
thereafter during which the first petitioner submitted Ext.P4 statement.
By Ext.P6 order passed on 26.3.2009, the Assistant Educational
Officer, Alathur declined to approve the second petitioner’s
appointment and directed the Manager to appoint the fourth
respondent as Peon in the vacancy that arose on 1.9.2008. The first
petitioner has, aggrieved by Ext.P6 order filed Ext.P7 appeal before the
District Educational Officer, Palakkad. In this writ petition, the
petitioners challenge Ext.P6 and also seek a direction to the District
Educational Officer, Palakkad to consider Ext.P7 appeal and pass
orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
3. The question whether Ext.P6 order passed by the
Assistant Educational Officer is sustainable in law or not is a matter for
the District Educational Officer to decide in view of the fact that the
first petitioner has chosen to move the said authority in appeal. In
these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it will be premature for
WP(C).No.11427/2009 3
this Court to finally pronounce on the issue. Since the first petitioner
has already moved the District Educational Officer in appeal, it is for
the said authority to consider the same and pass orders thereon.
Since the claim of the fourth respondent relates to appointment under
the dying-in-harness scheme and her husband passed away on
4.6.2008, it is only desirable that the appeal is disposed of
expeditiously.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to
the District Educational Officer, Palakkad to consider Ext.P7 appeal and
pass orders thereon after notice to and affording the petitioners and
the fourth respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final
orders in the matter shall be passed within three months from the date
on which the petitioners produce a copy of this writ petition along with
a certified copy of this judgment before the District Educational Officer,
Palakkad. The District Educational Officer, Palakkad shall after final
orders are passed in the matter, communicate the same to the
petitioners and the fourth respondent. The contentions of both sides
on the merits are kept open.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS