Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.SHEEBA, U.P.S.A., SIVAGIRI HIGHER versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.SHEEBA, U.P.S.A., SIVAGIRI HIGHER v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 21758 of 2007(M) [2007] RD-KL 15161 (7 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21758 of 2007(M)

1. V.SHEEBA, U.P.S.A., SIVAGIRI HIGHER
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL.

4. THE MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :07/08/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 21758 OF 2007

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is stated to be working as Upper Primary School Assiostant (Natural Science) in Sivagiri Higher Secondary School at Varkala, which is an aided institution under the management of respondent No.4.

2. According to the petitioner, she had worked in two short spells between October 1, 1991 to December 4, 1991 and from December 6, 1991 to March 9, 1992, before she was appointed against a regular vacancy of U.P.S.A with effect from June 1, 1992.

3. It appears that during the academic year 1996-97 one post of U.P.S.A. was reduced due to fall in student strength. It is contended by the petitioner that she was not paid salary for the period from April 1, 1997 to July 14, 1997. She contends that teachers who were similarly situated like the petitioner and some of her juniors working in other schools under the same management in Kottayam district, were given salary for the same period in spite of the fact that there was division fall in those schools as well. According to her, she is entitled to get a similar treatment since she had been working in the school from October 1, 1991.

4. I am afraid the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be WPC NO.21758/07 Page numbers entertained or considered at this distance of time particularly since petitioner was entitled to challenge the order, if any, that was passed by the departmental authority at the relevant point of time. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she had submitted Ext.P2 representation before respondent No.2 in February 2003 in this regard. The limited prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts. P1 and P2. I am not satisfied that the above prayer should be allowed. I do not propose to make any further observation on the merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage. However, I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy, if any, available to her under law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.21758/07 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00

JUDGMENT

WPC NO.21758/07 Page numbers 1ST MARCH, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.