IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8431 of 2010(D)
1. THRESSIAMMA JOHN, L.P.SHCOOL ASSISTANT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
6. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 8431 OF 2010 D
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The case of the petitioner is the following: The petitioner was
appointed as LPSA on 5.6.1984 in St.Joseph’s UP School,
Pandippara. With effect from 5.6.1995, she was transferred to
SALPS, Anicadu under the same educational agency. Thereafter,
she was transferred to SLT LPS, Vazhakulam with effect from
2.6.2008. The petitioner is presently continuing in Vazhakulam
School. The Assistant Educational Officer, Kothamangalam withheld
the salary of the petitioner from the month of June, 2009 stating that
the transfer and posting of the petitioner to Vazhakulam School is
against the existing orders of the Government and the order of the
District Educational Officer. According to the petitioner, the vacancy
to which she was transferred was the resultant vacancy due to the
promotion of Smt.Betty George as H.S.A.(PS) in SMHS, Nakapuzha,
of which, the sixth respondent is the educational agency and which is
a newly opened school. It would appear that the educational
authorities directed that the appointment of Smt.Betty George as
W.P.(C) NO.8431 OF 2010 D
:: 2 ::
H.S.A. in SMHS, Nakapuzha would be recognized subject to the
condition that the resultant vacancy at Vazhakulam School will be
filled up by a protected teacher. On the ground that a protected
teacher was not appointed at Vazhakulam School and instead the
petitioner was transferred and posted, her transfer and posting were
not approved by the educational authorities. The appointment of
Smt.Betty George was approved.
2. The petitioner submitted representation to the Deputy
Director of Education. That was rejected as per Ext.P5 dated
9.10.2009. It is pointed out that against Ext.P2 order dated
11.3.2009, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam,
by which the Deputy Director of Education insisted that a protected
teacher should be appointed in the resultant vacancy on the
promotion of Smt.Betty George, the Manager has filed Ext.P6
representation before the Director of Public Instructions. He has
also challenged the consequential orders issued by the District
Educational Officer and the Assistant Educational Officer. Ext.P6 is
pending disposal. It is submitted that if Ext.P6 is disposed of after
hearing the petitioner, the Manager and all other affected parties, the
disputes involved in the case could be resolved. In this Writ
W.P.(C) NO.8431 OF 2010 D
:: 3 ::
Petition, the petitioner has also challenged the orders which were
challenged by the Manager before the Director of Public Instructions.
3. In these circumstances, it is only just and proper to direct
the second respondent, Director of Public Instructions, to dispose of
Ext.P6 representation dated 23.6.2009, submitted by the sixth
respondent, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the sixth
respondent, the petitioner and any other affected party. I do so. In
view of this direction, it is not necessary to consider the question
whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief claimed in the
Writ Petition. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy
of the judgment before the second respondent.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/