Kerala High Court
Ashalatha S vs The Deputy Director (Education) on 1 June, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 35266 of 2017 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
ASHALATHA S.,
W/O.RAJESH, RAJEEVAM,
KOZHENCHERRY EAST P.O., KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 641.(UPPER PRIMARY
SCHOOL ASSISTANT, SREE VIJAYANDA GURU
VIDYALAYA(SVGV)HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KIDANGANNOOR)
BY ADV. S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA-689 101.
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVALLA-689 101.
3. THE MANAGER,
SREE VIJAYANADA GURU VIDYALAYA (SVGV) HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, KIDANGANNOOR.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER NISHA BOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rvs.
WP(C).No. 35266 of 2017 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2009
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13.7.2007
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2012 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2012 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.7.2010
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23.6.2010.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
1.7.2010.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
4.6.2012.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.12.2016 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P[C]NO.31225 OF 2016
(C).
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.6.2017 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.6.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT
NO.2.
EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.8.2017 IN W.P
[C]NO.26360 OF 2017 (T).
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
RVS.
P.V.ASHA J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35266 of 2017
------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, who is working as UPSA, has filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P12 order issued by the District Educational Officer, saying that he does not have the power to pass fresh orders on approval since orders were already passed rejecting approval.
2. As per Ext.P11(a) judgment dated 11.08.2017 in W.P.(C).No.26360 of 2017, this Court directed the second respondent to consider representation-Ext.P11, in which she had requested to approve her appointment pointing out that the grounds on which the approval was rejected ceased to exist consequent to the approval granted in the case of her seniors. However, District Educational Officer passed Ext.P12 order, informing the petitioner that his decision cannot be reviewed in the absence of any direction from the superior authorities, since the approval was already rejected. Petitioner simultaneously filed a contempt W.P.(C).No.35266 of 2017 2 petition also.
3. The Learned Government Pleader produced the order No. B4/6905/17/K.Dis. dated 08.11.2017 in which the District Educational Officer has recalled the order Ext.P12 and passed orders approving the appointment. However, even from the order passed on 08.11.2017, it is seen that the District Educational Officer passed the order only after consulting with the officials in the General Education Department at Government Secretariat and Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram, apparently after being informed of the filing of the Contempt Case.
4. It is a case where this Court by Ext.P11(a) judgment directed the second respondent to pass orders on the request of petitioner for approval, after taking notice of the rejection of the proposal for approval and the subsequent events. It was open for the second respondent to seek the opinion of the learned Government Pleader in case there was any doubt regarding the implementation of the judgment, instead of passing the orders like Ext.P12 and thereafter, passing orders after discussion with Government and DPI as mentioned in order W.P.(C).No.35266 of 2017 3 dated 08.11.2017.
At any rate, since approval is already granted to the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2011, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to grant all the benefits due to the petitioner consequential to this approval, after re-fixing her pay, within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS