IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25966 of 2008(N) PETITIONER : RAJESH.K.G., URDU TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, TARUR, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (ACADEMIC) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, PALGHAT. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, ALTHUR, PALGHAT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25966 OF 2008 N -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as full time Teacher in Urdu in AUP School, Tarur, Palakkad District, as per Ext.P1 order of appointment dated 5.6.2006. The appointment was made against a retirement vacancy of one T.P.Kalliyanikutty. It is stated that T.P.Kalliyanikutty was a full time Urdu Teacher, who retired from service on 31.3.2006. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 order dated 12.9.2006. Challenging Ext.P2 order, the Manager filed appeal before the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer confirmed the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. Against the order of the District Educational Officer, the Manager filed appeal before the Director of Public Instruction, who disposed of the appeal as per Ext.P3 order dated 25.10.2007. The Director of Public Instruction also concurred with the view taken by the authorities below. Challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 Revision before the first respondent. Ext.P4 Revision is pending disposal. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: W.P.(C) NO.25966 OF 2008 :: 2 :: “1. To call for the records in this case upto the issuance of Exhibit P3. 2. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate orders or writ quashing P2, P3 and order No.B6/6512/06 dt.13.12.2006 of the 3rd respondent. 3. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order compelling the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner made as per Exhibit P1. 4. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order compelling the respondents to release to the petitioner illegally withhold for the last 2 years and to continue paying the salary. 5. To grant such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 6. To award to the petitioner the cost in these proceedings.” 3. In view of the pendency of Ext.P4 Revision before the Government, the grievance of the petitioner would be satisfied, for the present, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 Revision expeditiously, reserving the right of the petitioner in respect of the other reliefs. 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the first respondent will dispose of Ext.P4 Revision at the earliest. W.P.(C) NO.25966 OF 2008 :: 3 :: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P4 Revision dated 11.3.2008, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected parties, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months. b) Petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/