Vinu Merin Thomas vs The Director of Public Instruction, The Deputy Director (Education), The District Educational Officer and The Corporate Manager

K.T. Sankaran, J.—While the petitioner was working as UPSA in St. George''s High School, Kottangal, she was temporarily promoted and appointed as HSA (Malayalam) in a leave vacancy for the period from 2.1.2007 to 2.3.2007, as per Ext.P3 appointment order. As per Ext.P4 order dated 22.1.2007, the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 on the ground that duration of the vacancy to which the appointment was made was only for sixty days. This was evidently on the ground that no appointment could be approved in view of Rule 7A(3) of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules. Ext.P4 order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P5 order dated 9.7.2008. The Deputy Director of Education directed that the appointment of the petitioner from 2.1.2007 to 2.3.2007 as HSA (Malayalam) shall be treated as appointment on daily wages. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the Manager filed Ext.P6 Revision dated 6.8.2008 before the Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P6 Revision is pending disposal.

In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. Heard the learned Government Pleader who takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P5 order passed by respondent No. 2;

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P4 order passed by respondent No. 3;

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondent No. 1 to consider and pass final order on Ext.P6 revision petition with notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 within such time as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;

(iv) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to continue in service as UPSA during the period from 2.1.2007 to 2.3.2007 and to draw salary and allowances in the post of UPSA, in case her promotion as H.S.A.(Malayalam) was not approved; and

(v) To mould and grant such other reliefs, as this Hon''ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner confines the relief to relief No. (iii).

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of Ext.P6 Revision filed by the Manager, 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 petitioner and the Manager. The petitioner would be entitled to file a representation before the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner shall send a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment to the fourth respondent (the Manager) by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner shall also produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.