IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16129 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- G.MAYA, AGED 37 YEARS, EPPAB GOKULAM, EREZHA NORTH, MAVELIKKARA, WORKING AS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGH SCHOOL, CHETTIKULANGARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI. SIKKY RAVISHANKAR SMT.SHIJIMOL M MATHEW RENJY GEORGE CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA- 690101 2. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, CHETTIKULANGARA - 690106 3. HEADMASTER, HIGH SCHOOL, CHETTIKULANGARA - 690106 4. SMT.LAXMI.R, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) NOW PROMOTED AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), HIGH SCHOOL, CHETTIKULANGARA - 690106 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No 16129 OF 2011 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 6.6.2001 OF THE PETITIONER GIVEN BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 7.6.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBTS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. KP T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.16129/2011-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is claiming promotion in a vacancy of High School Assistant (Mathematics). It is pointed out that she is presently working as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school managed by the second respondent. She is having degree, namely, B.Sc as well as B.Ed in Mathematics. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is the daughter of the Manager and she is a trained graduate in Physical Science. 2. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is seen that the Manager has already appointed the fourth respondent and the petitioner has approached the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P3 which is styled as an appeal. Learned Government Pleader points out that no appeal will lie against the order passed by the Manager and it can only be treated as an objection for the appointment given to the fourth respondent. W.P.(C).No.16129/2011 -:2:- 3. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent that while considering the proposal for approval of appointment of the fourth respondent, the claim of the petitioner as raised in Ext.P3 also will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms