LAWS(KER)-2009-8-16

PAVITHRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On August 19, 2009
PAVITHRAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition (C) Nos. 20627 and 24490 of 2006 were filed, challenging Ext. P4 order of the Government dated 21-7-2006, by the aggrieved teacher and the Manager of an aided school, respectively. Both the writ petitions were heard and dismissed by a common judgment. So, the said teacher and the Manager have, respectively, preferred the above appeals. Since the Writ Appeals are directed against the very same order of the Government and also the common judgment of the learned single Judge affirming the same, they are heard and disposed of together.

(2.) The Manager prepared a seniority list of teachers of the school as on 1-1-1993, which was provisionally approved by the Assistant Educational Officer (for short, 'the A. E. O.'). In the said list, which is produced as Ext. P1, the appellant was shown at Sl. No. 5 and the sixth respondent at Sl. No. 6. So, the sixth respondent preferred a representation against the said seniority list before the A. E. O., but the said officer rejected the same by Ext. P2 order dated 13-6-1994. Challenging Ext. P2 order, he filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer (for short, "the D. E. O.") as provided under Rule 38(2) of Chapter XIV-A, of the Kerala Education Rules (herein referred to as "the Rules"). The said appeal was dismissed by the D. E. O., by Ext. P3 order dated 15-6-1995. Exts. P2 and P3 orders became final, as the sixth respondent did not take any further steps to challenge them.

(3.) After the lapse of ten years, the sixth respondent preferred Annexure II representation dated 25-7-2005 before the A. E. O. claiming seniority over the appellant in the cadre of LPSA. The A. E. O. made an endorsement on Annexure II, on 3-8-2005 to the effect that his complaint regarding seniority has been rejected as per proceedings No. E. 8201/93 L.Dis dated 13-6-1994 and addressing of a letter raising the very same point again is against the service rules. The sixth respondent challenged the said endorsement before the Government, by filing a revision, Annexure III, under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the rules. The prayers in the revision were the following :