Lissy Mathew Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[a.n.venugopala gowda j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the order dated 8.9.10, on la.ro.xi to xiii in o.s.no.75/09, on the file uf principal civil judge and jmfc at bantwal, d.k., vide annex-a to the w.p.k.t.sankaran, j.w.p.(c). no. 33235 of 2010 ddated this the 8th day of november, 20101. the petitioner was working as upsa in st.mary's high school, palliport. anticipating reduction of posts in 2010-2011, the manager ordered termination of the services of the petitioner as per ext.p3 order dated 5.8.2010. though the petitioner made a request to the manager to allow her to continue in service even without salary, that request was not acceded. the district educational officer issued ext.p5 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, by which, one post of upsa and one post of lpsa were reduced, applying the teacher- student ratio of 1:45. later, the government issued ext.p6 order, g.o.(p) no.191/10/g.edn. dated 22.9.2010, extending the benefit of 1:40 teacher-student ratio. the contention of the petitioner is that if 1:40 teacher-student ratio is applied, there will be no reduction of post and therefore, the petitioner could continue in service. pointing out these facts, the petitioner submitted ext.p7 representation dated 20.10.2010 to the district educational officer requesting to revise the staff fixation order for 2010-2011. the grievance of the petitioner is that no order has been passed on ext.p7 representation by the district educational officer. 2. though several reliefs are claimed in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, it would be sufficient if the district educational officer is directed to dispose of ext.p7 representation expeditiously. 3. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the district educational officer, ernakulam (second respondent) to consider and dispose of ext.p7 representation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. it is made clear that no notice need be issued to the petitioner by the district educational officer as the petitioner waives her right to be heard in the matter. the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the judgment before the district educational officer.

Judgment:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 33235 OF 2010 D

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010

1. The petitioner was working as UPSA in St.Mary's High School, Palliport. Anticipating reduction of posts in 2010-2011, the Manager ordered termination of the services of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order dated 5.8.2010. Though the petitioner made a request to the Manager to allow her to continue in service even without salary, that request was not acceded. The District Educational Officer issued Ext.P5 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, by which, one post of UPSA and one post of LPSA were reduced, applying the teacher- student ratio of 1:45. Later, the Government issued Ext.P6 order, G.O.(P) No.191/10/G.Edn. dated 22.9.2010, extending the benefit of 1:40 teacher-student ratio. The contention of the petitioner is that if 1:40 teacher-student ratio is applied, there will be no reduction of post and therefore, the petitioner could continue in service. Pointing out these facts, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 20.10.2010 to the District Educational Officer requesting to revise the staff fixation order for 2010-2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that no order has been passed on Ext.P7 representation by the District Educational Officer.

2. Though several reliefs are claimed in the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, it would be sufficient if the District Educational Officer is directed to dispose of Ext.P7 representation expeditiously.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam (second respondent) to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that no notice need be issued to the petitioner by the District Educational Officer as the petitioner waives her right to be heard in the matter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the District Educational Officer.