IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31758 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR (2 WHEELERS AND 3 WHEELERS) GOVT.TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL (THS, PALA) BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN SRI.SANTHOSH THOMAS KANDAMCHIRA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION (VHSE) DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (THS) PALAI. 4. PRADEEP KUMAR M. VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR IN MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF 2 WHEELERS AND 3 WHEELERS, THS, VADAKARA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 31758 OF 2008 (E) ==================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, petitioner was appointed as an LDC in the Government Technical High School, Pampady. Subsequently under Rule 9 (a) (I) of the General Rules in KS & SSR, petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in Maintenance and Repairs of two wheelers and three wheelers. While so, by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent has ordered the 3rd respondent to relieve the petitioner and allow the 4th respondent to join the post. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7, seeking an order from the 2nd respondent in order to enable him to continue as Vocational Instructor. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P6 is a laconic order in as much as it does not contain any reasons requiring his release from the post. I am not able to agree with the counsel. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that what is sought for is replacement of employees like the petitioner who are appointed on Rule 9 (a) (I) of KS & SSR. It also shows that regular appointees are now reporting for duty and it is only thereupon that the petitioner is sought to be replaced. No objection can be taken to Ext.P6. WPC 31758/08 :2 : 3. Be that as it may, if Ext.P7 has been received, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp