IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35895 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- NEENA KURIAKOSE, W/O.T.SIBY THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI), VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, IRIMPANANM, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DT. 4. THE MANAGER, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, IRIMPANAM, ERNAKULAM DT. 5. SMT.K.B.SINDHU, L.G.HINDI TEACHER, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, IRIMPANAM, ERNAKULAM DT. 6. THE HEADMASTER, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, IRIMPANAM, ERNAKULAM DT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 35895 OF 2008 (W) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that after two spells of appointment as Lower Grade Hindi teacher, w.e.f. 6/6/01 she was appointed as HSA on a regular basis, in the school of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. The appointment was approved by Ext.P3 order. However in Ext.P4 staff fixation order for 2008-09, one HSA post was abolished. Against that order, Exts. P6 and P7 revision and stay petition under Rule 12(E)(3) of Chapter XXIII K.E.R was filed before the 2nd respondent. The revision was rejected by Ext.P9. Aggrieved by the said order, further revision has been filed before the 1st respondent under Rule 12(F) of Chapter XXIII K.E.R. Along with revision, a stay petition also has been filed. These are Exts. P10 and P11. 2. In this writ petition what the petitioner seeks is an expeditious disposal of the revision and an earlier consideration of the stay petition. 3. Having regard to the pendency of the statutory revision as per Ext.P10, I am inclined to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the same on an expeditious basis. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the WPC 35895/08 :2 : 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P10 revision with notice to the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, it is also directed that it will be open to the petitioner to move the 1st respondent for expeditious orders on Ext.P11 stay petition filed along with Ext.P10, and thereupon orders shall be passed on Ext.P11. Needless to say that the relevance of Exts.P12 and P13 shall also be considered while orders are passed in the revision. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp