G. Lathakumari vs The State of Kerala

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the record.

Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed as HSA (Physical Science) on 24.01.1991 in a school under the management of the 3rd respondent. On approval of her service, the petitioner is said to have been in continuous service.

Now the petitioner, having completed 23 years of service, has also been given selection grade. In the Staff Fixation Order 2014-2015, the post held by the petitioner is declined and accordingly, the petitioner is said to have been placed in teachers bank through Ext. P4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision in Ext. P7 before the 1st respondent. Ventilating her grievance that so far, Ext. P7 revision petition has not been disposed of, she has filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the action of the respondents is clearly illegal in terms of Ext. P5, which protects the teachers, who have completed 23 years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner is afflicted with cancer and has been under treatment. In terms of the extant Government regulations, even those teachers, who have been suffering from debilitating disorders like cancer, are also protected from being placed in the Teachers'' Bank. Accordingly, the learned counsel has sought a direction from this Court to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P7 revision petition and dispose it of expeditiously.

Per contra, the leaned Government Pleader has raised serious objections with regard to the very maintainability of the revision petition in Ext. P7. According to him, Rule 12(e)(c) of Chapter XXIII of KER governs the position, and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have filed a revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction. According to the learned Government Pleader, the very revision cannot be taken up for consideration as it is filed before a wrong forum.

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to consider the issue on merits. Once the petitioner has approached a particular forum, for whatever statutory remedy, if the authority before whom the revision petition is pending comes to a conclusion that the petition is not maintainable, it is for the said authority, in this case the 1st respondent, to decide accordingly.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that along with Ext. P7 revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application to stay the operation of Ext. P4 to the extent of the deployment of the petitioner to the Teachers'' Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that unless there is an interim protection before the 1st respondent considers Ext. P7 revision petition, the petitioner would in the mean while be placed in Teachers'' Bank and she would be put to irreparable loss.

Once a quasi judicial authority has been seized of an issue to be adjudicated upon, this Court normally would not be inclined to issue any interim directions, inasmuch as it is the said authority who is to adjudicate the whole issue in its entirety. In the circumstances stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pleaded that there shall be a limited stay of further proceedings only to enable the 1st respondent authority to consider and dispose of, in the first place, the interlocutory application.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider, in the first place, the interlocutory application filed along with Ext. P7 revision petition and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, there shall be an interim suspension in respect of Ext. P4 to the extent of the petitioner.

It is further directed that the first respondent shall consider Ext. P7 after the disposal of the interlocutory application and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Needless to observe that if any of the parties to the revision petition seeks an opportunity of being heard in person, the 1st respondent may as well consider the said request. No order as to costs.