DIVAKARA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 5153 of 1974 is the Manager of a High School. The 4th respondent in the O. P. had worked as a teacher in that school for 9 and odd months during the school year 1965-66. She was then working as a lower grade Hindi Teacher In the year 1972 there arose a regular vacancy of a Hindi Teacher by the retirement of the then existing incumbent. The petitioner appointed the 5th respondent as teacher in the vacancy and applied to the Educational Authorities for approval. The 4th respondent claimed a preferential right of appointment to the post concerned under R.51A of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. The D. E. O. refused to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent and directed the Manager to appoint the 4th respondent to that post.

(2.) The matter was taken up by the Manager before the 2nd respondent Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum who also rendered a decision in favour of the 4th respondent. A revision was filed by the Manager before the Government which was ultimately dismissed. These orders of the 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent and 1st respondent were challenged before this court in O. P. 1734 of 1973. This court set aside the orders and remitted back the case to the 3rd respondent viz , the D. E. O who was directed to consider the whole question from the proper angle. When the matter went back before the D. E. O she refused to hear the advocate of the petitioner saying that she is conducting an enquiry and that the petitioner has not obtained prior sanction to engage an advocate in the enquiry and if the petitioner is allowed to engage an advocate it will amount to denial of natural justice to the 4th respondent. After hearing the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent the third respondent upheld the claim of the 4th respondent. Against the order of the 3rd respondent the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal and a revision was also filed before the Government which was also rejected.

(3.) In the meanwhile proceedings were taken . against the petitioner for disqualifying him from holding the post of Manager in view of his alleged non compliance with the departmental authorities' orders. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court for setting aside the orders of respondents 1 to 3 and for a writ of mandamus for compelling the 3rd respondent to approve the appointments of the 5th respondent as lower grade Hindi Teacher in the petitioner's school from 12th June 1972 onwards.