IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14448 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MERLY JOHNS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LPSA, L.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MUHAMMA, CHERTHALA. 2. SMT.T.MANICHI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS LPSA, L.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MUHAMMA, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT LUTHERAN SCHOOLS INDIA EVANGELICAL CHURCH, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 14448 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were appointed as Lower Primary School Assistants in L.M.L.P.School, Muhamma, Cherthala under the Corporate Management of Lutheran Schools, India Evangelical Lutheran Church, Thiruvananthapuram on 13.9.2004 and 15.7.2004 respectively. In fact, both of them were appointed against the vacancies occurred on account of resignation two L.P.School Assistants. Their order of appointment were duly forwarded to the fourth respondent for approval. In the case of the first petitioner, it was declined to be approved on the ground that there was no approved Corporate Management for the Lutheran Schools, as per order dated 13.10.2004. In the case of the second petitioner, the proposal of appointment was declined to be approved on the ground that the acceptance of resignation of Smt.Asha was not produced, as per order dated 20.10.2004. Against the rejection of approval of the fourth respondent, the Manager has filed an appeal under Rule 8(5) Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules before the third respondent. The said W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 2 appeal filed by the Manager was rejected by the third respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the second respondent and the same was also rejected as per Ext.P3 order. Against Ext.P3 order of rejection by the second respondent, the first petitioner has filed Ext.P4 review petition. It is preferred before the first respondent as a review petition filed under Rule 93 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is to be construed as a revision petition filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. The second petitioner, on being aggrieved by the rejection of order of approval by the second respondent, preferred a revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules before the first respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to direct the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 jointly and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard. When this matter is taken up for admission, the learned Government Pleader submitted that on Ext.P5, hearing was conducted on 14.5.2010 and, on that date, the second respondent was heard on the matter. However, the fifth W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 3 respondent-manager was absent on that date and therefore, the matter has been posted for further hearing. It is a fact that no hearing was so far been conducted on Ext.P4. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the prayers of the petitioners seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 together. Now that hearing was conducted on Ext.P5 and it is posted for further hearing, I think the first respondent shall issue notice to the first petitioner and hearing on Ext.P4 shall also be conducted along with hearing on Ext.P5. Such cause of action will be more convenient since the fifth respondent is also to be heard on both these petitions . The first respondent is directed to take necessary steps in terms of the above direction, and he shall consider Exts.P4 and P5 jointly and pass orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. 14448/2010 JUDGMENT 27th May, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 5