AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Sankaran, J.—In the manner which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.
The case of the petitioner is the following: She was working as UP School Assistant in Karuna UP School, Thennilapuram with effect from 2.6.2004 in a regular vacancy. Originally, she was appointed as LP School Assistant in that school in a leave vacancy for the period from 6.11.2002 to 28.2.2003. Later, the petitioner was appointed as UP School Assistant for the period from 1.8.2003 to 19.12.2003 in another leave vacancy. While working in the regular vacancy, she was retrenched from service on 15.7.2007 (counsel says the date noted as 15.7.2006 in the Writ Petition is a mistake)due to abolition of the post. A vacancy of LP School Assistant arose in the school with effect from 1.6.2010 due to the retirement of one V. Rajan, LP School Assistant on 31.3.2010. The petitioner staked a claim for appointment in that post claiming that she is entitled to the preferential claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. The Manager did not approve the claim of the petitioner and the 4th respondent was appointed as LP School Assistant. The 4th respondent is a fresh hand. The petitioner approached the Assistant Educational Officer with a request to direct the Manager to appoint her in the regular vacancy of LP School Assistant. The petitioner also filed WP(C) 20224/2010 to issue a direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. As per Ext.P5 judgment dated 29th June, 2010, the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to consider and dispose of representation submitted by the petitioner. In compliance with the judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer disposed of the case as per order dated 30.7.2010 (Ext.P6). Since Ext.P6 was not in favour of the petitioner, she filed Ext.P7 appeal before the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. It is stated that Ext.P7 appeal is pending disposal.
The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
i) call for records relating to Exhibit P7;
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing Ext.P6 order;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P7 on merits at the earliest, in a time limit as fixed by this Hon''ble Court after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner;
iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the vacancy of LPSA arose on the superannuation of Sri. Rajan, LPSA, w.e.f. 01.06.10;
v) pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner confines the relief to relief No. (iii) in the Writ Petition. The request is just and reasonable. However, it is necessary to hear the Manager and the 4th respondent before disposing of the appeal.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
The District Educational Officer shall dispose of Ext.P7 appeal dated 24.8.2010 submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Manager and Beena. G, the 4th respondent. The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment and copy of the Writ Petition to respondents 3 and 4 by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the District Educational Officer. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.