CHANDRASEKHARAN MANIKOTH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who claims proprietary and managerial rights in respect of the 3rd respondent Iverkulam Grameena Padasala Upper Primary School, has approached this Court, with the prayers for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to fill up any vacancy in the 3rd respondent aided school or make any appointment in the said school. The Writ Petition was subsequently amended pursuant to order dated 25-6-2012, whereby a writ of certiorari is also sought to quash the impugned Ext. P-6 Government Order dated 1-7-2005, Ext. P-7 order dated 4-8-2005 passed by the 2nd respondent Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) and Ext. P-8 order dated 13-2-2006 passed by the 2nd respondent AEO.

(2.) The gist of the case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) Pursuant to the claim made by the 5th respondent as per Rule 51A as against the vacancy which arose in the Iverkulam school, the AEO had permitted the petitioner to continue as teacher in that vacancy and had submitted a report to the Government recommending the case of the petitioner for approval of appointment in that regular vacancy, as per Rule 51A. The 5th respondent had also represented to the Government to issue necessary orders to the 2nd respondent AEO in the matter of appointment and approval for such appointment in the said vacancy in the Iverkulam school. Thereupon, the Government passed Ext. P-6 Government Order dated 1-7-2005 recognizing the Rule 51A claim of the 5th respondent and directed the AEO to take necessary steps in the matter of approval of the 5th respondent's appointment in the regular vacancy that arose on 22-11-2004 in the Iverkulam school. In pursuance of Ext. P-6 GO. Dated 1-7-2005, the 2nd respondent AEO issued Ext. P-7 proceedings dated 4-8-2005 granting necessary approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent in the said vacancy in the Iverkulam school. Subsequently, the 5th respondent's probation pursuant to the said appointment was also declared by the 2nd respondent as per Ext, P-8 proceedings. It is also submitted by the petitioner that, subsequently, the Director of Public Instructions (DPI), as per Ext, P-9 order dated 4-7-2012, in exercise of the powers under Rule 5 A, Chapter in KER, accorded sanction for approving the managership claim of the petitioner in respect of the Iverkulam school. It is also submitted that in compliance with Ext. P-9 order dated 4-7-2012 issued by the DPI, the 2nd respondent AEO had also issued Ext. P-10 order dated 5-11-2012, approving the status of the petitioner as Manager of the Iverkulam school as per Rule 5 A, Chapter III KER, retrospectively with effect from 30-5-2005.