IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19503 of 2009(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BINEESH CHANDRAN.B., H.S.A.(ENGLISH), HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR.P.J.MATHEW, ADVOCATE. MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19503 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as H.S.A (English) in the High School for Boys, Thevalakkara which is an aided school. He was appointed as per Exhibit P1 order dated 02.06.2008 in a retirement vacancy of Smt.K.M.Saraladevi, H.S.A (Social Science). 2. The 4th respondent rejected the proposal for approval as per Exhibit P2 for various reasons which was challenged by the 5th respondent-Manager in appeal before the 3rd respondent. The appeal was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Exhibit P4, and presently Exhibit P5 revision petition is pending before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the proposal for approval. 3. The petitioner has got a case that Exhibits P2 and P4 orders have been passed partly on the basis of Exhibit P6 Government Order, G.O.(P)No.104/2008/G.Edn. dated W.P.(C) No.19503/2009 2 10.06.2008. It is pointed out that in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604), the said orders cannot be sustained. In the light of the fact that Exhibit P5 revision petition filed by the Manager is pending before the 2nd respondent, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5, after hearing the petitioner, the Manager and any other Teacher who may be affected by the disposal of the said revision petition. The applicability of the principles contained in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 604) and the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in Rakhee vs. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 766) and Deepa Augustine vs. Geetha Alen (2008(2) KLT 771 SC) will also be considered. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp