Corporate Manager, Carmelite Congregation of Sisters C.M.C. Educational Agency, Trinity Convent, Kolazhy, Sini Machery, Hsst (Junior) Maths, St. Raphel C.G.H.S.S., Ollur and Ann Supriya Johny, Hsst (Junior) Maths, S.H. Convent Girls Hss. Thrissur vs State of Kerala, Director of Higher Secondary Education, Directorate of Higher Secondary Education Housing Board Building, Thiruvananthapuram and Laxmi C. Sunny

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The three petitioners herein are respectively, a Corporate Manager and two teachers working as Higher Secondary School Teacher-Junior(Mathematics). The main challenge is against Exhibit P3 order passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education. As per the said order, the Manager has directed to appoint the petitioner, namely the 3rd respondent herein, as HSST-Junior(Mathematics) under the Corporate Manager. The petitioners'' case is that the appointment of petitioners 2 and 3 have been approved by the Director of Higher Secondary Education as per Exhibits P1(b) and P1(c) orders, namely the proceedings of the year 2003 and 2004 and the order Exhibit P3 is passed without adverting to the same.

The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed after the school was granted Higher Secondary divisions in the year 2000. The details averred by the petitioners in paragraph No.2 show that the 2nd petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the staff selection process held on 1.6.2001 and Exhibit P4 is the rank list. Exhibit P5 is the rank list pursuant to which the 3rd petitioner was appointed. It is also averred that since the appointments made in pursuance of Exhibit P4 including that of the 2nd petitioner were not approved till 27.8.2003, by way of abundant caution, the 2nd petitioner also participated in the interview held on 18.1.2003, pursuant to which Exhibit P5 rank list was published. In Exhibit P5 rank list, the 2nd petitioner is rank No.1 and the 3rd petitioner is rank No.2. The 3rd respondent secured only rank No.4 in respect of the subject, Mathematics. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exhibits P8 and P9 orders are relevant to be considered and nothing is mentioned in Exhibit P3 about the said orders. It is pointed out that Exhibit P8, especially paragraph No.6(b) will show that the Government permitted approval of the appointment of teachers who acquired SET qualification at a later date from their dates of acquiring SET qualification. Exhibit P9 produced along with the reply affidavit is a later Government Order dated 7.5.2007. The Government ordered that the appointment of SET holders during the ban period from 14.2.2001 to 12.11.2001 will be approved with effect from their date of appointment and paragraph No.6(b) read as first item therein will stand modified to that extent.

In answer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is that even as on the date of interview, the 3rd respondent alone was qualified. Therefore, the order Exhibit P3 is perfectly justified.

Along with I.A.No.4384/2012, the petitioner has produced Exhibit P12, a revision petition filed before the Government challenging Exhibit P3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the Government may be directed to consider and pass orders on the same in the light of various orders relied upon by the petitioners.

Evidently, this is a case where the appointment of the petitioners have been approved and Exhibit P3 is a later order. In the light of the above, the matter will have to be considered by the Government.

The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent is also filing revision petitions challenging Exhibits P1(b) and P1(c). The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3rd respondent''s revision petition is delayed and therefore the petitioners may be allowed to file objection to the same. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the matter, since it is upto the Government to consider various aspects.

The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent then submitted that since Exhibit P12 is a revision petition filed only now, the same also may not be maintainable. It is a matter for the Government to consider, since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Exhibit P3 was under challenge in the present Writ Petition and the revision is filed during its pendency. All the aspects will be considered by the Government after hearing the petitioners and the 3rd respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The revision petitions filed by the respective parties will be considered and orders will be passed accordingly. No costs.