KESAVAN NAIR Vs. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Petition the first petitioner is the Manager of the B.S.S.U.P.School,Vayyattupuzha and the second petitioner a Hindi teacher in the first petitioner's school.Really,this is a fight between the second petitioner and the 4th respondent for the post of a Hindi teacher in the above school and this Tight which was started in 1967 is yet to end.

(2.) IN the year 1966 -67,the first petitioner appointed the 4th respondent as a part -time Hindi teacher in a temporary vacancy in his school from 1st August 1966 to 29th March 1967.Thereafter,the 4th respondent was again appointed in the year 1967 -68 in two other temporary vacancies.But none of those appointments were approved by the 1st respondent.Assistant Educational Officer,Pathanamthitta.The 1st respondent forwarded to the first petitioner Ext.P -1 letter dated 11th June 1968 of the 2nd respondent stating that the 4th respondent is not entitled to get permanent exemption from age -limit under G.O.MS.196/67/Edn .,dated 5th May 1967.

(3.) IN the year 1969 -70,the 1st petitioner considered the claims of the 4th respondent and decided that the 2nd petitioner has got better claims to be continued in the year 1969 -70.As the appointment of the 2nd petitioner was not approved,on 5th September 1972 the 1st petitioner made Ext.P -15 representation to the 1st respondent requesting for approval of the 2nd petitioner's appointment.But the 1st respondent by Ext.P -16 letter dated 25th September 1972 requested the 1st petitioner to forward the appointment order of the 4th respondent for the year 1967 -68 along with other relevant papers.To this the first petitioner submitted Ext.P -17 representation dated 26th October 1972 making it clear that Ext.P -16 demand is not tenable and also requesting the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of the second petitioner.By Ext.P -18 dated 26th October 1972 also a further request was made to the 1st respondent by the first petitioner to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner.The 2nd petitioner also made representations to the 2nd respondent stating that her appointment may be approved.Then,by Ext.P -19 letter dated 1st November 1972 the 2nd respondent informed the 1st petitioner that necessary instructions for the approval of the appointment of the second petitioner were given to the first respondent.But the 1st respondent by Ext.P -20 letter,dated 16th November 1972 informed the first petitioner to forward the appointment order of the 4th respondent in respect of the appointment in 1967 -68 and also directed the first petitioner to reinstate the 4th respondent in the school forthwith.By Ext.P -21,dated 3rd May 1973 the 2nd respondent also issued similar instructions to the first petitioner asking him to reinstate the 4th respondent after relieving the second petitioner.These instructions were repeated in Ext.P -22 letter,dated 10th May 1973 of the 1st respondent.The first petitioner replied to Ext.P -22 reiterating his earlier contentions.The 1st respondent on 5th June 1973 also sent a further communication Ext.P -23 to the first petitioner.It is under the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this court with this Original Petition.