IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26808 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ O.BEENA, AGED 38, D/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR KONATHUVEEDU,THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENTLY WORKING AS U.P.S.A IN THE LUTHERGIRI U.P.S ARYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (E) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALAPPUZHA. 5. MANAGER CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF LUTHERAN SHCOOLS INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTERAN CHURCH TRIVANDRUM SYNOD, CONCORDIA H.S COMPOUND PERORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5 6. SMT.AJANTHA U.P.S.A, LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, ARYAD. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R5 GOVT. PLEADER MR. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26808 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T The dispute is regarding the appointment of the 6th respondent, which according to the petitioner is overlooking her claim under Rule 51A, K.E.R. and that view seems to be endorsed by the Manager also who is the 5th respondent herein. It is stated that by Ext. P6 order, the D.P.I. has directed the D.E.O. to approve the appointment of the 6th respondent and against that order, the Manager has filed Ext. P7 revision invoking the power of the 1st respondent under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A, K.E.R. It is stated that the 1st respondent has not passed orders on Ext. P7 and that in the meanwhile Ext. P6 is likely to be implemented. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner, the 5th respondent and also the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents. Having regard to the nature of the order that I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary that I should hear the 6th respondent. W.P.(C) No. 26808 OF 2008 -2- 3. Ext. P7 being statutory nature, the 1st respondent shall hear the affected parties and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. In order to redress the grievance of the petitioner that in the meanwhile Ext. P6 is likely to be implemented I direct that the 1st respondent shall consider the request in Ext. P7 for an interlocutory order, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner or the Manager to produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent along with a copy of the writ petition and seek for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-