Lekha Mol Thomas vs The Deputy Director (Education), Director of Public Instructions and Rincy P. James

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner is working as a Primary Department Teacher in Government Tribal School, Kattappana. It is stated that the petitioner acquired Bachelors Degree in B.A. (English) in 2008 and passed B.Ed. Degree (English) in October, 2009. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to be promoted as H.S.A. (English) in Idukki District. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though she is the senior most P.D. Teacher (English) in Idukki District, her name was not included in Exhibit P4 seniority list prepared by the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki. It is stated that the seniority list was prepared at a time when there was no vacant post of H.S.A. (English). According to the petitioner, a vacancy of H.S.A. (English) in Idukki District arose on 24.3.2010. However, the petitioner was not promoted as H.S.A. (English) and her name was purposefully omitted for being considered for promotion. The name of the third respondent was included in the list. It is stated that the petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 17453 of 2010 seeking to quash Exhibit P4 seniority list. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 4.6.2010 permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. That appeal was rejected by the Director of Public Instruction as per Exhibit P6 order dated 28.7.2010. The Director held that the vacancy of HSA (English) arose on 21.1.2010 and it was reported on 24.3.2010. The petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as H.S.A. (English) as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It is stated in Exhibit P6 that the petitioner appeared for B.Ed. Degree (English) examination held in October, 2009 and a provisional certificate was issued to her on 4.3.2010.

Challenging Exhibit P6 order, the petitioner filed Exhibit P9 revision dated 15.9.2010 before the Government. Exhibit P9 is pending disposal. The contention of the petitioner is that the vacancy arose on 24.3.2010 and as on that date, the petitioner was fully qualified to be promoted as H.S.A. (English).

The learned Government Pleader submitted that though Exhibit P9 revision was filed quoting a wrong provision of law, it can be treated as a revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, it would be sufficient, if Exhibit P9 revision is directed to be considered by the Government, reserving the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.

In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

(i) The additional fourth respondent shall dispose of Exhibit P9 revision filed 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 the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the third respondent.

(ii) The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of the judgment, a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of I.A. No. 13777 of 2010 before the additional fourth respondent.

(iii) The petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ Petition, I.A. No. 13777 of 2010 and a copy of the judgment to the third respondent by registered post and the petitioner shall produce proof of the same before the additional fourth respondent.