The petitioner was appointed as Part-time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 05.06.2006 by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 05.06.2006. The Assistant Educational Officer, Thamarassery approved the said appointment by order passed on 19.09.2008. Nearly six years later, the petitioner moved the Government by filing Ext.P5 representation dated 28.05.2014 wherein he has prayed for an order approving his appointment with effect from 01.06.2009 as a Full- time Sanskrit Teacher. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer approving his appointment only as a Part-time Sanskrit Teacher and seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to approve his appointment as a Full-time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 01.06.2009. In the alternate, the petitioner prays for an order directing the State of Kerala to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
2. Shorn of details, the contention raised in Ext.P5 representation and in the instant writ petition is that the post of Part- time Sanskrit Teacher could have been converted into a Full-time post by diversion from Group-C subjects. It is contended that Group-C diversion was permitted upto the year 2010 and therefore, the petitioner's appointment should have been approved as a Full-time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 01.06.2009. It is contended that as the petitioner was working as a Full-time Sanskrit Teacher since 01.06.2009, he is entitled to have his appointment approved as a Full- time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 01.06.2009.
3. The petitioner was appointed only as Part-time Sanskrit Teacher by Ext.P1 appointment order dated 05.06.2006. That appointment was approved only on 19.09.2008 as a Part-time Sanskrit Teacher. The petitioner cannot be said to be unaware of the fact that his appointment was approved only as a Part-time Sanskrit Teacher. If as contended by him there was diversion of Group-C posts and he was working as Full-time Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 01.06.2009, he ought to have moved the Government seeking the reliefs sought in Ext.P5 and in the instant writ petition at least in the year 2009. Instead, nearly 8 years after he was appointed as a Part-time Sanskrit Teacher and more than 5 years after his appointment was approved as Part-time Sanskrit Teacher, he has sought the intervention of this Court and also the Government to have his appointment approved on a Full-time basis. The claim made by the petitioner is in my opinion belated.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE DSV/28/06