The petitioner, an aided school teacher, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad to approve his appointment as Upper Primary School Assistant with effect from 1.6.2010. It is contended that though the Government have by Ext.P12 Government order dated 5.12.2013 directed the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad to approve the petitioner's appointment with effect from 1.6.2011, till date the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad has not complied with the said order. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing before me on 27.5.2014, while admitting the writ petition, I directed the second respondent to file an affidavit and explain the reason why Ext.P12 Government order has not so far been implemented. The Personal Assistant to District Educational Officer, Chavakkad who is holding charge of the District Educational Officer has pursuant to the said direction filed an affidavit dated 18.6.2014. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 thereof which are relevant for the purpose of this case are extracted below for easy reference:
4. It is submitted that, soon after the receipt of the Exhibit P12 order, this respondent has examined the case of the petitioner in detail and it has come to the notice of this respondent that in the year 2011-12 there is a reduction of one division in the school for want of pupils strength in the UP section. As a result of this, there was no sufficient post to accommodate the petitioner as UPSA with effect from 1.6.2011 onwards.
5. It is submitted that the staff fixation for the year 2011-
12 in the case of petitioner's school was assessed before the issuance of GO 199/11 dated 1.10.2011 and it was found that one UPSA post is reduced. Thus there is no post to accommodate the petitioner as UPSA in the school in the year 2011-12. Pointing out all this aspect this respondent has sought a clarification from the Government as per letter dated 29.1.2014 as to the mode of implementation of Exhibit P12 Government order. The true copy of the letter addressed to the first respondent is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R2 (a).
6. It is submitted that this respondent is thus awaiting a reply to the clarification sought from the Government in this regard. Moreover the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur in many cases has objected to the appointment made during 2011-
12 in cases where there was reduction of post for want of sufficient pupils strength in the year 2011-12. Thus this respondent has not willfully disobeyed any of the order of the superior authority. This respondent has only sought for a clarification as to how the Exhibit P12 Government order is to be implemented. Thus the delay in implementation of Exhibit P12 Government order is not at all willful but due to the above mentioned reasons
3. Shorn of details the stand taken by the deponent of the affidavit is that after Ext.P12 Government order was issued, the District Educational Officer examined the case of the petitioner and thereupon it came to his notice that in the year 2011-12 there is a reduction of one division in the school for want of students and as a result thereof there was no post to accommodate the petitioner. The deponent has stated that the District Educational Officer therefore sent a letter dated 29.1.2014 (Annexure R2(a) to the Secretary to Government, General Education Department seeking a clarification, but till date the clarification has not been received. The deponent has also stated that the delay in implementation of Ext.P12 Government order is not willful but on account of the fact that the clarification from the Government is awaited.
4. It is not in dispute that the District Educational Officer is himself the Manager of the school on account of a management dispute. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Ext.P12 Government order disclose the fact that staff fixation order for the year 2011-2012 shall govern the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 also. This is by virtue of orders issued by the Government in that regard. The District Educational Officer, Chavakkad cannot pretend to be ignorant of the aforesaid Government order or of the fact that staff fixation for the year 2010-2011 will govern 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 as well. The only ground on which he sought a clarification of Ext.P12 Government order is that during the year 2011-2012 there is a fall in the student strength and consequently one post should be abolished. In doing so he lost sight of the fact that the staff fixation for the year 2010-2011 should govern 2011-2012 as well. In such circumstances, the clarification sought was in my opinion an attempt to deny the benefit of Ext.P12 Government order to the petitioner. If only the Officer had read the Government order in full he would not have sought the clarification. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the second respondent need not await the clarification of the Government for implementing Ext.P12 Government order.
I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as Upper Primary School Assistant with effect from 1.6.2011 within one week from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before him. Arrears of salary and allowances shall be disbursed within another month thereafter. In view of the fact that the petitioner was unnecessarily driven to the necessity of filing a writ petition in this Court, I also deem it appropriate to award him the sum of ₹10,000/- as costs. The State Government shall in the first instance pay it along with the arrears of salary and allowances and realize it from the District Educational Officer who declined to implement Extt.P12 Government order and sought a clarification ignoring the terms thereof. If the District Educational Officer has retired from service, the sum of ₹10,000/- shall be recovered from the Death-cum- Retirement-Gratuity payable to him or his other retirement benefits.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
rkc.