IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 3987 of 2004(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V. DILEEPKUMAR, (FULL TIME MENIAL T.D. HIGH SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA), S/O. VAMANA PAI, KALATHIPARAMBIL, THIRUMALABHAGAM P.O., THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.C.S.ULLAS SMT.K.BINU MOLE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, T.D. SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE HEAD MASTER, T.D. HIGH SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R3,4 SMT.R.RANJINI FOR R3,4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3987/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 1.4.98 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY GOVERNMENT. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18.2.2000 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL NO.14/2000/TD DT. 30.3.2000 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DT. 8.6.2000 AGAINST EXT.P3. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B4/6344/2000/L.DIS DT. 7.9.2000 ISSUED BY IIND RESPONDENT P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 5.10.2000 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(1):- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 21.1.2000. R3(2):- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER DT. 21.1.2000. R3(3):- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 27.1.2000. R3(4):- COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 25.1.2000. True copy P.A. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3987 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings of respondents 2 and 3, terminating his service as full time menial. It is seen that the second respondent has already considered the matter and expressed his inability to approve the appointment. According to the petitioner, no reason whatsoever is stated for the decision taken by the second respondent. Be that as it may, since the second respondent has already considered the matter, it is only appropriate that the petitioner pursues his statutory remedy before the first respondent. In the event of the petitioner pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal within two months from today, the same shall be duly considered by the first respondent with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed within another three months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3987 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 10th November, 2008.