P.A. BINDHU v. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

#1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA.

#2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA.

#3. THE MANAGER, KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL (KSUPS), THOTTIPPAL (P.O), THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

#4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (K) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

#5. M.K. SUNAJA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (UPSA), KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THOTTIPAL, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

#6. V.R. SREEREKHA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (UPSA), KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THOTTIPAL, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

#7. REKHA M.C., LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (LPSA), KARSHAKA SAMAJAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THOTTIPAL, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R.3,7 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R.3,7 SMT.NITA.N.S. FOR R5 & 6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the representation dated 20.12.1979 submitted by petitioner's father to the 3rd respondent. Ext.P2. True copy of the representation dated 31.12.1991 submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P3. True copy of the relevant extract of the application dated 31.12.1991 in the prescribed form. Ext.P4. True copy of the relevant extract of application dated 17.10.2003 in the prescribed form, submitted by petitioner to the 3rd respondent. Ext.P5. True copy of the representation dated 9.9.2005 by registered post acknowledgment due. Ext.P6. True copy of the reminder dated 29.5.2006. Ext.P7. True copy of the letter dated 12.6.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P8. True copy of the letter dated 31.5.2007 issued by Ist respondent. Ext.P9. True copy of the appeal dated 6.7.2007 submitted by petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P10. True copy of the order dated 22.10.2007 passed by District Educational Officer, Irinjalakuda. Ext.P11. True copy of the representation dated 20.11.2007. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.11172/ 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT What is essentially sought for by the Petitioner is the implementation of Ext.P10 order.

#2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother, Smt. T.K. Krishnaveni was working as LPSA in the school of which the 3rd respondent is the Manager. Her mother expired on

4.9.1979. At that time the petitioner was a minor. On attaining majority, Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 to the 3rd respondent, requesting that she be given employment extending the benefit of Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A KER. There was no reply to Ext.P2.

#3. In the meanwhile Petitioner acquired TTC and again submitted Ext.P4 application. According to the Petitioner the Manager offered to accommodate her in the next arising vacancy. But there was no response even to Ext.P4 and therefore the petitioner filed Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 representations. There upon the Manager issued Ext.P7 rejecting her claim and AEO also rejected his claim by issuing Ext.P8. WP(c).No.11172/08 2

#4. Against Exts.P7 and P8 the Petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal before the 2nd respondent who passed Ext.P10 order holding that the Petitioner is eligible to be appointed under the 3rd respondent, in terms of Rule 51-B of Chapter xiv-A KER and held that the Manager is liable to appoint the petitioner in the available vacancies.

#5. It is stated that although, Ext.P10 order was passed by the 2nd respondent as early as on 22.10.2007, so far, she has not been offered employment, but on the other hand several appointments were made in the school, including that of respondents 5 to 7. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner in the school under his management, at least from 2.6.2004 when the 5th respondent was appointed and with all consequential benefits.

#6. Neither the 3rd respondent Manager nor respondents 5 to 7 have filed any counter affidavit in this case. On the other hand the official respondents have filed a counter affidavit where they reiterate the petitioner's WP(c).No.11172/08 3 entitlement for appointment in terms of Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A KER.

#7. Now that Ext.P10, an order recognizing the petitioner's right for appointment under Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A of KER has been passed by the 2nd respondent and since the order has become final, it is the obligation of the 3rd respondent to comply with the same and to appoint the petitioner. This has not been done and therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall offer appointment to the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P10 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.11172/08 4