IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15800 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SREELATHA PARAYIL, W/O. V. MOHANAN, AGED 39 YEARS,FULL- TIME HINDI TEACHER, KANHIRODE A.U.P. SCHOOL, P.O.KANHIRODE, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 592. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR P.O., KANNUR 2. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR NORTH, P.O. KANNUR 2. 5. THE MANAGER, KANHIRODE A.U.P. SCHOOL, P.O.KANHIRODE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 592. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 15800 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T As per Ext.P1dated 2.8.2008, the petitioner was appointed as a full time Hindi teacher in Kanhirode A.U.P. School against the retirement vacancy. Subsequently, pursuant to the staff fixation order for the year 2008-2009, one division was reduced. However, the staff fixation was revised as per Ext.P2 by applying 1:40 Teacher Student ratio and the division was restored. Though yester year's position regarding the number of periods for imparting Hindi was thus became available the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 held that 1:40 ratio was applied and division was restored solely for the purpose of protecting the concerned teacher likely to face retrenchment and hence, it could not be reckoned for the purpose of sanctioning a full time post of Hindi Teacher. In the said circumstances, feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3 the Manager has filed revision petition before the 2nd respondent. However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P4. In the said circumstances, Ext.P6 revision petition was filed by the WPC.15800/2010 : 2 : petitioner before the first respondent under Rule 12F of chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules, Ext.P6 is still pending before the first respondent. 2. Rule 12F of Chapter XXIII of KER provides for filing revision petition against Ext.P4 order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 revision petition expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the circumstances, there will be further direction to the first respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also to the 5th respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge