IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34448 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- S.SREELAKSHMI, ODUKACHIYIL VEEDU, VADAKKUMBHAGAM, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MANAGER, S.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CLAPPANA, KOLLAM. 5. SMT.LEKHA C.NAIR, H.S.S.T. (HISTORY) (JUNIOR), S.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CLAPPANA, KOLLAM. 6. K.SIDHARDHAN, PANDAKASALA THARA, CLAPPANA NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY (FORMER MANAGER, S.V.H.S.S. CLAPPANA, KOLLAM). GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34448 OF 2008 (A) ==================== Dated this the 21th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner contends that the Manager, the 4th respondent, invited applications to the post of HSST(History) in SVHSS Clappana at Karunagappally. Petitioner submits that selection process was vitiated for various reasons and complained to the 3rd respondent by filing Ext.P3. That was rejected by Ext.P4 and thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 revision to the 1st respondent. It is stated that Ext.P5 has been forwarded by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent for comments. 2. In the meantime, the 5th respondent who was appointed was terminated by Ext.P6 order. That order was cancelled by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P7 and thereafter the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P8 to the 4th respondent requiring the Manager to cancel Ext.P6. 3. Petitioner challenges Exts. P7 and P8. The contention raised is that these orders were passed without notice to the petitioner and that these orders are prejudicial to her. 4. In my view, there is no merit in this submission. As already noticed, the grievance of the petitioner in Exts. P3 and P5 is that the selection process were vitiated. In Ext.P6, termination of the 5th WPC 34448/08 :2 : respondent was ordered on the ground that the Manager was incompetent to make appointments. This has been reversed by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P7. Therefore, while the petitioner is contending in Exts. P3 and P4 that the selection process is vitiated, what was dealt with by the authorities in Exts. P6 and P7 is only the competence of the Manager. Conclusions in Exts.P6 and P7 cannot have any impact on the contentions raised by the petitioner in Exts. P3 or P5, in as much as they are totally different and distinct. Therefore, Ext.P7 or P8 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner and hence the plea that the said orders should not have been passed without hearing her also lacks any substance. It will be open to the petitioner to pursue Ext.P5, which will be decided on its merits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp