Kerala High Court
WA/2503/2008 of K.P.JYOTHI Vs THE STATE OF KERALA on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2503 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36977/2008 Dated 17/12/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WA.No. 2503 of 2008()
---------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36977/2008 Dated 17/12/2008
....................
APPELLANT(S):
--------------
K.P.JYOTHI, AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O. RAJAGOPALAN HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
(PHYSICAL SCIENCE)PARASSINIKKADAVU HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
SRI.K.E.HAMZA
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KANNUR,P.O.KANNUR.
4. SMT. P.P.LEELA,MANAGER, PARASSINIKKADAVU
HIGH SCHOOL (SOCIETY) VIDHYA,PANNENPARA ROAD, PALLIKUNNU 670 004.KANNUR DISTRICT.
5. THE HEADMASTER,PARASSINIKKADAVU
HIGH SCHOOL,P.O.PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.A.No.2503 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008.JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
On 8-6-2001, the petitioner was appointed as anHSA (Physical Science) in the school of which thefifth respondent is the Headmaster. Thatappointment order was issued by the then Manager.Later, the fourth respondent came to be appointedas Manager and the statutory authorities issuedan order dated 31-7-2008 approving suchappointment with effect from 23-4-2006, that is,a date anterior to the appointment of thepetitioner. The DEO, in the course ofconsideration of the question of approval of theappointment of the petitioner as HSA, issued -: 2 :- Ext.P6 letter on 30-9-2008 requiring theManager/Headmaster to forward certain documents.When the question of approval of the petitioner'sappointment, thus, was pending considerationbefore the DEO, the statutory authority; thefourth respondent whose managership is with aretrospective approval, issued Ext.P7 notice andExt.P9 order taking the view that thepetitioner's re-appointment as per Ext.P2 as aRule 51A claimant would not be made and shecannot be permitted to continue as an unapprovedteacher. That action by the fourth respondent asa manager, while the issue was gaining theattention of the DEO, essentially, relates inforking the proceedings in which ext.P6 has beengenerated. We also note that Ext.P2 was issuedeven before the DEO, Kannur approved theappointment of the fourth respondent as per orderdated 31-7-2008.
When Ext.P9 decision of the manager waschallenged, the learned single Judge has issued
the impugned judgment preserving the rights ofthe petitioner to pursue her statutory remediesand also seek interlocutory orders from suchstatutory authorities. The availability ofalternate efficacious remedy is not a matter indispute. Obviously, therefore, the impugnedjudgment, being a discretionary one, we find noground to interfere with that judgment in writappeal in exercise of power under Section 5 ofthe High Court Act. But, it needs to be noticedthat the petitioner was initially appointed on8-6-2001 as against a leave vacancy and suchappointment was approved. Going by the impugnedExt.P9, the petitioner's status as an eligibleRule 51A claimant is also not much in dispute.Therefore, the petitioner having dischargedduties and responsibilities with continuity atleast from the date of Ext.P2, i.e., 13-6-2008,following her initial approved appointment on thebasis of Ext.P1, though only for 135 days, wedeem it appropriate that status-quo as on todayis maintained till the DEO hears the petitioner WA2503/08
and respondents 4 and 5. We, therefore, affirmthe judgment of the learned single Judge anddispose of the writ appeal directing that theaforesaid status shall be obtained and the DEOshall decide as to the course of action to beadopted, particular regard being had to thevarious grounds raised by the petitioner inGrounds C, D and E of the memorandum of writappeal. We also clarify that we have notexpressed anything on the merits and the DEO willdecide the matter untrammelled by anything statedin this judgment or in the judgment impugned inthis writ appeal. Let the DEO take a finaldecision as afore-directed within two months.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,Judge.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.
Sha/261208