The petitioner was appointed as Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 2.6.2003 as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 2.6.2003. The Assistant Educational Officer, Meladi approved the said appointment only as part-time teacher. Aggrieved thereby, the Manager of the school filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education who by Ext.P2 order passed on 2.2.2006 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the Manager of the school filed a revision petition before the Director of Public Instruction. By Ext.P6 order passed on 5.8.2006, the Director of Public Instruction rejected the appeal. The petitioner did not challenge the said orders in time and they attained finality. Long thereafter she moved the Government by filing Ext.P9 revision petition dated 9.3.2014. The instant writ petition was filed shortly thereafter on 21.5.2014 seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-2 and P-6 and set aside the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant approval to the Petitioner as full-time Sanskrit Teacher from 2.6.2003.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P-9 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit.”
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Government, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the State Government to dispose of Ext.P9 revision petition after affording her and the Manager of the school an opportunity of being heard.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Perused the records. It is evident from the pleadings presently on record that the petitioner has not invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Government in time. Though rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules does not stipulate a period of limitation within which the revisional jurisdiction of the Government has to be invoked, I am of the opinion that the revisional jurisdiction has to be invoked within a reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that a revision petition filed on 9.3.2014 challenging an order which was passed on 5.8.2006 after a gap of more than seven years is one filed within a reasonable period. The petitioner is an educated woman and a teacher. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner is illiterate. Even assuming that the revision petition is maintainable at this distance of time, there is no averment in the writ petition to the effect that the Government have failed to act promptly on the revision petition. Apart from vaguely stating that a revision petition was filed before the Government and the copy thereof is produced as Ext.P9, the petitioner has not given the date on which the revision petition was filed. Except stating that Ext.P9 revision petition is pending before the Government without any action, the petitioner has not made any averment to the effect that there is inordinate delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the revision petition. In any case, there is no averment to the effect that the Government have not taken steps to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Ordinarily, this should have resulted in dismissal of the writ petition. I however do not deem it fit and proper to non-suit the petitioner on that short ground mainly for the reason that a part of the blame is that of the lawyer who did not take care to incorporate relevant averments in the writ petition.
I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the State Government to dispose of Ext.P9 revision petition, if the original thereof has been received as on today and is pending, expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition complete in all aspects before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. Needless to say, the Government shall before disposing of Ext.P9 revision petition, issue notice to and afford the petitioner, the Educational Officers concerned and the Manager of the school an opportunity of being heard and shall after orders are passed, communicate copies thereof to all the parties.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE
vpv