V.M. Muraleedharan And Ors vs Deputy Director Of Education And Ors

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents not to withhold the salary of 2 and 3 among them and to allow

them to continue in the post of Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) in the Aided Upper Primary School, Vellamunda - of which the 1st petitioner

is the Manager - up to March 31, 2020. The petitioners have also made a plea that this Court interdict any order that may have been issued by

respondents 1 and 2 to withhold the salary of petitioners 2 and 3 and pray that this writ petition be so ordered.

When this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Dipu R., submitted that Ext.P12 order - which was issued a month

before the filing of this writ petition; and Ext.P13 order issued on 13.01.2020 by the DEO, Wayanad, would throw some light in the controversy in

issue and therefore, prayed that the 1st respondent Deputy Director of Education (DDE) be directed to consider all the aspects and to take a final

decision on his clients' claims.

Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent - Headmistress, submitted that his client is incapacitated from issuing

orders for disbursement of salary to petitioners 2 and 3 because they are not qualified to be appointed as Lower Primary School Teachers in view of

Ext.P7 order. He submitted that, as is evident from the said order, the AEO has taken a stand that it is only after certain clarifications from the 1st

respondent - DDE are obtained, can any final decision be taken with respect to petitioners 2 and 3. He therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed as against his client.

The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, initially sought time to file counter pleadings on behalf of 1st respondent - DDE, but then,

to a pointed question from this Court, submitted that the said respondent is willing to consider the claims of petitioners 2 and 3 in view of all the

materials and documents available on record, especially because in Ext.P7, the AEO also appears to have sought certain clarifications from the said

respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that if this Court is so inclined, the 1st respondent will be in a position to hear the

parties and take a final decision on their claims within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He prayed that this

writ petition be ordered on such terms.

When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that, at this stage, it may not be possible or proper for this Court to enter into affirmative

declarations regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to any reliefs, particularly because in Ext.P7, as rightly pointed out by Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan,

the AEO has sought certain clarifications from the 1st respondent - DDE.

Obviously, therefore, for any decision to be taken by this Court, the view of the 1st respondent - Deputy Director of Education will have to be

obtained. I am, therefore, of the firm view that instead of this Court waiting for a counter affidavit from the said respondents, it will be better that the

said officer be directed to hear all the parties and take a final decision on the claims impelled by petitioners 2 and 3.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent to immediately hear the petitioners, as also the 4th respondent -

either physically or through videoconferencing - and on the request of the petitioners for salary up to 31st March, 2020, thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that I have not entered into the rival contentions of the parties and that it will be up to the 1st respondent to take a decision

appropriately, after considering all their contentions, including the impact of Exts.P12, P13 and P14 orders.