Kerala High Court
Raju C.Gopal vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The on 18 August, 2008
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18725 of 2008(D)
1. RAJU C.GOPAL , AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCITON
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :18/08/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 18725 OF 2008 D
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, while working as HSA (Physical Science) in M.D.C.M.S. High School, Erumapramattom, was promoted as Headmaster from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2007, in the leave vacancy of Smt.Sali George. The appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy was duly approved. The petitioner was later transferred to C.M.S.High School, Koovappally as per Ext.P2. When a regular vacancy of Headmaster arose, one Lawrence, who, according to the petitioner, is junior to him, was appointed as the Headmaster. On a representation submitted by the petitioner, the Director of Public Instruction passed Ext.P3 order, directing the Manager to re-appoint the petitioner with effect from 2.6.2007. In terms of Ext.P3 order, it is stated that the Manager re-appointed the petitioner as Headmaster with effect from 2.6.2007.
2. It would appear that the District Educational Officer has sought clarification from the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction issued Ext.P4 communication to the District Educational Officer in this regard. However, the District Educational Officer rejected the approval, as per Ext.P5 order. The Manager filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Education challenging Ext.P5. The Deputy Director of Education allowed the appeal as per Ext.P6 order and the District Educational Officer was directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner, if the appointment is otherwise in order. W.P.(C) NO.18725 OF 2008 :: 2 ::
3. The case of the petitioner is that disobeying the orders of the Director of Public Instruction and the Deputy Director of Education, the District Educational Officer has rejected the approval raising unnecessary objections, as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner contended that the District Educational Officer is bound to obey the orders and directions issued by the superior officers as per Exts.P4 and P6.
4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
a) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P5 and P7 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4trh respondent to imjplement the direction of the Director of Public Instruction and the Deputy Director of Education issued in Exhibit P4 and P6 orders in full spirit forthwith.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th Respondent District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster with effect from 2.6.2007 onwards and disburse the salary and allowances forthwith.
d) Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'nle Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.
5. I.A.No.10694 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner and Ext.P8 order dated 7.7.2008, passed by the Director of Public Instruction, is also produced along with the application. Ext.P8 order is issued after the Writ Petition was filed. As per Ext.P8 order, the District Educational Officer was directed to approve the W.P.(C) NO.18725 OF 2008 :: 3 ::
appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster, if otherwise it is in order. As per Ext.P8, the Manager was directed to accommodate a protected teacher in a next arising vacancy.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Ext.P8, the only relief that is required, for the present, is to issue a direction to the District Educational officer to comply with the directions in Ext.P8 order.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District Educational Officer to strictly comply with the orders and directions issued by the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext.P8 order dated 7.7.2008, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition, copy of I.A.No.10694 of 2008 and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/