IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22437 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.N. AKRAM, AGE 25, S/O ABUBACKER URDU TEACHER, AIDED U.P. SCHOOL MALAMAKKAVU, P.O. KUDALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD 3. THEY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCAION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. THE MANAGER, AIDED U.P. SCHOOL - MALAMAKKAVU, P.O. KUDALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY SRI DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 22437 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Urdu Teacher in an Aided UP School, Malamakkavu, in Palakkad District under the 5th respondent school. The said appointment was approved by the competent educational authority. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed against a retirement vacancy vacancy and in the case of the incumbent who held the post viz., Smt. Fathima, her appointment was approved as Full- Time Teacher as the post in question was converted as a full-time post by Group C diversion. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner contends that he is entitled to get his appointment approved as full-time Urdu teacher. In this context it is to be noted that the very order of appointment issued by the 5th respondent Manager to the petitioner was as a full time Urdu teacher. According to the petitioner, it is ignoring the aforesaid aspects that while approving his appointment effected as per order dated 1.6.2009 that it was approved only as a part-time Urdu teacher. Raising all such contentions, the petitioner has approached the 3rd respondent. However, the request of the petitioner for approving his appointment as full-time Urdu Teacher WPC.22437/2010 : 2 : was declined to be approved as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.4.2010. The 5th respondent Manager submitted Ext.P5 revision petition before the 4th respondent. After the institution of this writ petition the petitioner has also moved the 4th respondent in revision. Ext.P6 is the revision petition thus filed before the 4th respondent. In short, Ext.P5 revision petition filed by the 5th respondent and Ext.P6 revision petition filed by the petitioner are now pending consideration before the 4th respondent. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the issue involved in this case, raised by the petitioner as per Ext.P6 require consideration. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P6 revision 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 petitioner and the 5th respondent, in the light of relevant Government Orders on this subject. In view of the fact that Ext.P5 revision petition filed by the 5th respondent is also pending consideration, it would only be appropriate that the same shall also be considered along with Ext.P6. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge