REENA MATHEW AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working as UPSAs in M.S.Higher Secondary School, Ranni in Pathanamthitta District, under the corporate management of 5th respondent, have approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article >226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 communication dated 8.12.2017 of the 4th respondent District Educational Officer, Ext.P3 order dated 26.2.2018 of the 5th respondent Corporate Manager and Ext.P6 order dated 4.5.2018 of the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education to the extent the petitioners are denied approval as regular UPSAs with effect from 1.6.2016 and 6.6.2017 respectively, against the promotion vacancy of Sri.Sunil Mathew and the resignation vacancy of Sri.Binu M.Mathew respectively, and denied seniority above respondents 6 and 7 in the category of UPSA. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that they are appointed as UPSAs on regular basis with effect from 1.6.2016 and 6.6.2017 respectively, against the respective vacancies referred to above, with all consequential benefits, including pay and allowances, with seniority over respondents 6 and 7, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instructions to dispose of Exts.P7 and P9 revision petitions filed under Rule 8A Chapter XIVA of KER before the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instructions and Exts.P8 and P10 stay petitions filed in those revision petitions, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on respondents 5 to 7 is dispensed with.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3 and P6 communication/orders to the extent the petitioners are denied approval as regular UPSAs with effect from 1.6.2016 and 6.6.2017 respectively, against the promotion vacancy of Sri.Sunil Mathew and the resignation vacancy of Sri.Binu M.Mathew respectively, they have already moved Exts.P7 and P9 revision petitions before the 2nd respondent which are accompanied by Exts.P8 and P10 stay petitions. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to pursue their challenge against Exts.P2, P3 and P6 before the statutory authority before whom Exts.P7 to P10 are pending consideration.