IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29139 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANJULA.V., ASSISTANT TEACHER, KOTTAKUNNU UP SCHOOL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERY. 3. P.P.JAYASREE, ASSISTANT TEACHER, KOTTAKUNNU UP SCHOOL. *ADDL.R4 . THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TRIVANDRUM. (*ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.11.2009 IN I.A. NO. 12840 OF 2009) BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29139 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Lower Primary School Assistant (LPSA), working as such with effect from 22.7.1996. She has continuous approved service from the said date. The 3rd respondent was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) with effect from 5.6.2002. As per the combined seniority list published in respect of the school, which is Ext.P2, the petitioner's serial number is 13 whereas the 3rd respondent's serial number is 15. The complaint of the petitioner is that when the 2nd respondent issued the staff fixation order which resulted in reduction of one division in the IInd Standard, she has been deployed as the junior most LPSA . According to her, she being senior to the 3rd respondent, it is the third respondent who should have been thrown out. 2. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 revision before the additional 4th respondent challenging Ext.P3 staff fixation order under Rule 12 E of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. The said revision is pending. The counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction for an early disposal of Ext.P5 revision by the additional 4th respondent. 3. Though the 3rd respondent has been served with notice in this writ petition there is no appearance. The Government pleader has no objection in issuing a direction to the additional 4th respondent to W.P.(C) No. 29139 of 2009 2 dispose of Ext.P5 revision petition expeditiously. 4. In the above said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 4th respondent to consider and pass final orders on the revision filed by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as any other interested person. Till final orders are passed on Ext.P5 in accordance with the above direction, the interim order granted by this Court in this writ petition shall continue . This writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to Costs. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29139 of 2009 2 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st September, 2009