Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in writ petition No.7971/13. By judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground of delay. It is this judgment which is under challenge.
2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts of the case are that being a claimant under Rule 51-B of Chapter XIV-A Kerala Education Rules, by Ext.P2 order, dated 1.9.999, the appellant was appointed as a full time Urdu Teacher in the school in which the fifth respondent is the Manager. Approval was rejected by the educational authorities and one of the reasons stated was that the post available was only a part time post.
4. Manager filed an appeal to the District Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P1 order directing that approval be granted with effect from 29.6.2001 on a part time basis. Manager filed a second appeal to the Director of Public Instruction which was disposed of by Ext.P3 order directing that the approval as ordered by the District Educational Officer be granted with effect from 1.9.99. Accordingly, Ext.P2(a) proceedings were issued by Assistant Educational Officer on 9.10.2003 granting approval with effect from 1.9.99. Therefore, on that basis the petitioner was continuing in service as a part time Urdu teacher with effect from 1.9.99.
5. Almost ten years thereafter, he submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 18.2.2013 to the Government requesting that the post be restored to full time basis. It was thereafter he filed the original petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay.
6. Evidently therefore between 9.10.03 when Ext.P2(a) was issued and on 18.2.2013 when Ext.P6 representation was made by the appellant, there occurred delay of almost 10 years. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in concluding that there is inordinate delay in filing Ext.P6.
7. However, counsel for the appellant relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Maria Padma v. State of Kerala
[2009 (1) KLT 1036] and contended that it being a case of recurring cause of action there cannot be a delay as found by the learned Single Judge. Reading of the judgment relied on shows that the case decided by the Division Bench was one involving claim for arrears of pay, the entitlement of which was upheld by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education and the Government. However, in so far as this case is concerned, first of all this is not a case where the cause of action is a recurring one; secondly as early as when approval was rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer, it was stated that the post available was only a part time post. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that there is a full time post is also a disputed issue. For both these reasons, the decision relied on by the appellant cannot be of any assistance to him.
We fully agree with the learned Single Judge that Ext.P6 is a highly belated one and therefore the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge