IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17467 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHOUKKATHALI.M.P., HSA (URDU), SREE VIVEKANANDA VHSS PALEMAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN SRI.JESTIN MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 5. MANAGER, SVV HS, PALEMAD, PO-679 331 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 17467 of 2010 G ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A.(Urdu) in S.V.V.H.S., Palemad in Malappuram district. The fourth respondent declined to approve the said appointment as per Ext.P2. Against Ext.P2 order, the fifth respondent Manager filed an appeal. However, the same was dismissed by the third respondent as per Ext.P3. Thereupon, the Manager has unsuccessfully attempted a revision of the same. Ext.P5 is the order whereby the second respondent dismissed the revision petition filed by the Manager. Thereupon, the Manager has preferred Ext.P6 revision petition before the first respondent and the same is pending. Now, the petitioner has also approached the first respondent challenging the aforesaid orders through Ext.P8 revision petition. 2. Evidently, after approaching the Educational authorities, the fifth respondent has approached the Government by filing Ext.P6 revision petition and the same is pending consideration before the first respondent. Therefore, I am of the WPC.17467/2010 : 2 : opinion that there will not be any impediment in considering Ext.P8 revision petition along with Ext.P6 revision petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 revision petition along with Ext.P6 revision petition filed by the fifth respondent and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge