IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16682 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.B.PADMAJA, H.S.A. (MUSIC), GOVERNMENT H.S.S., THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J.. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16682 of 2008 J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The Government Pleader takes notice for respondents. It is stated by the counsel that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of. 2. The petitioner is working as HSA (Music) in Government Higher Secondary School, Thrikodithanam, Changanacherry. As per Ext.P1 order dated 15.2.2008, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kottayam, the petitioner was transferred to Meenadam Government High School on clubbing arrangement. The petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Director of Education. The same was considered by the Deputy Director of Education who passed Ext.P6 order dated 23.4.2008. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order. Challenging Ext.P6 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision dated 19.5.2008 before the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P7 revision is pending disposal. 3. The petitioner contends that in view of the Government Order dated 14.6.2003 (G.O.(P) No.226/2003/G.Edn) the petitioner is not liable to be transferred since she has completed 23 years of service and also have got selection grade. The petitioner contends that the second respondent has not considered this aspect and has not decided whether the petitioner is entitled to WP(C) No.16682/2008 2 the benefit of the Government order dated 14.6.2003. This is a matter to be considered by the Director of Public Instruction in Ext.P7 revision. 4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:- “(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and P6 and quash the same; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in the parent school by discontinuing the clubbing arrangement with G.H.S. Meenadam till her retirement. (iii) to issue such other relief or reliefs on this Hon'ble Court deem just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.” 5. Since Ext.P7 revision is pending before the Director of Public Instruction, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to relief No.i. Relief No.ii is in effect a request for stay of the operation of Ext.P1 order. Since Ext.P7 revision is pending disposal, I am of the view that the Director of Public Instruction can be directed to dispose of Ext.P7 revision expeditiously. It is also just and proper to keep in abeyance Ext.P1 order till the disposal of Ext.P7 revision by the Director of Public Instruction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of Ext.P7 revision as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of WP(C) No.16682/2008 3 being heard to the petitioner. Till the disposal of Ext.P7 revision, Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks