IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30491 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.S.SAJI,S/O.V.D.SUNNY,AGED 31 YEARS, FULL-TIME MENIAL,DEEPTHI HIGH SCHOOL, THALORE,THRISSUR 680 306. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR 680 003. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,DEVAMATHA CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF CMI SCHOOLS, DEVAMATHA PROVINCIAL HOUSE,PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR 680 001. BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30491 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5 th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT In the manner which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to 5 th respondent. G.P. takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Full Time Menial in Deepthi High School, Thalore, in the promotion vacancy of P.J.Wilson for the period from 3.8.2005 to 30.5.2010. It is stated that the promotion of P.J.Wilson was approved by the District Educational Officer as per order dated 15.11.2005 and therefore, it is clear that there was an established vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. However, the District Educational Officer rejected the proposal to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 order dated 14.8.2006. The appeal preferred against Ext.P2 was dismissed by Deputy Director of Education as per Ext.P3 order W.P.(C).No.30491 OF 2010 2 dated 13.9.2006. Though a revision was filed before the Director of Public Instruction, that was also dismissed as per Ext.P4 dated 11.11.2009. The Manager as well as the petitioner have preferred revision petitions to the Government as per Exts.P5 and P6 respectively. It is stated that Exts.P5 and P6 are pending disposal. 3. Though Several reliefs are prayed for in the Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 Revisions, leaving open the contentions put forward by the petitioner. 4. Since Exts.P5 and P6 are pending disposal, it is not necessary to consider the merits of the contentions put forward by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 revisions filed by the Manager and the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within W.P.(C).No.30491 OF 2010 3 a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the fifth respondent-Manager. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment and copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. The petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ Petition and copy of the judgment to the 5 th respondent by registered post and he shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms