IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16494 of 2010(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. M.P.RAMKUMAR, U.P.S.A. SERVE INDIA ADIVASI U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUNELLI- WAYNAD DISTRICT. 2. T.V.SAMUEL, U.P.S.A., SERVE INDIA ADIVASI U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUNELLI- WAYNAD DISTRICT. 3. SHINCY JOSEPH, U.P.S.A., SERVE INDIA ADIVASI U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUNELLI- WAYNAD DISTRICT. 4. E.P.SHAJU, PEON, SERVE INDIA ADIVASI U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUNELLI- WAYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SERVE INDIA ADIVASI U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUNELLI-WYNAD DISTRICT. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADI. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WAYNAD. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KALPETTA- WAYNAD. 5. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 16494 of 2010(J) 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 TO R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 16494 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners 1 to 3 were appointed as Upper Primary School Assistants in S.A.U.P School, Thirunelli as per Exts.P1, P5 and P11. The 4th petitioner was appointed as Peon in the said school as per Ext.P14 order. The orders of appointment of the petitioners were duly forwarded to the Educational Authority for approval. However, the second respondent declined to approve their appointment as per Exts.P2, P9, P12 and P15 respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of approval as per the aforesaid orders appeals were preferred. However, the 3rd respondent rejected the appeals and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Finally, the petitioners have taken up the grievance before the 6th respondent by filing Ext.P18. In Ext.P18 it has been wrongly described as a review filed under Rule 93 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules. Misquoting of the provision cannot affect the maintainability of such a petition if it is otherwise maintainable. Indisputably WPC.16494/2010 : 2 : a revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of KER is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, Ext.P18 has to be treated as revision petition filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of KER. Ext.P18 is still pending before the 6th respondent. 2. Considering the facts that Ext.P18 is pending before the 6th respondent, and the 6th respondent is duty bound to consider the same by invoking the powers under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of KER there will be a direction to the 6th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P18 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioners as also the first respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge