IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13173 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.S. SARITHA, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O. VINCY SANKAR, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), K.T.M. HIGH SCHOOL, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER K.T.M HIGH SCHOOL, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SRI.T.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL STUDIES), K.T.M. HIGH SCHOOL, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 13173 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Physical Science) on 27.7.2009. According to him, the said appointment was made against the 3rd sanctioned post of High School Assistant(Physical Science). The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non-approval of the said appointment based on Exts.P1 and P3. As per Ext.P1, first respondent directed that the 6th respondent who is a protected HSA(Social Studies), should be accommodated against the 3rd sanctioned post of HSA(Physical Science). Based on Ext.P1, the 4th respondent directed the Manager to accommodate the 6th respondent in terms of Ext.P1 order. According to the petitioner, the said orders are against Ext.P5 GO(P) No.125/2001/G.Edn. dated 2.4.2001. That apart, the dictum laid down by this court in Ext.P6 to P8 judgments. Raising such claims and contentions, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P4 revision petitions respectively against Exts.P1 and P3 orders, before the Government. No action was so far WPC.13173/2010 : 2 : been taken on the said revision petitions. It is in this circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The first respondent is clothed with the power to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P4 revision petitions. In fact, the said power is coupled with a duty. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P4, after hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P4 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge