IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1340 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16216/2007 Dated 02/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEDEVI S., W/O. S. RAJEEV, LAB ASSISTANT,. AIDED HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA-9. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE MANAGER, AIDED HIGHERSECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVAMBADY, ALAPPUZHA -9. 3. HARIKRISHNAN G, KOTHAKZHATH HOUSE, KAITHAVANA, ALAPPUZHA-3. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1340 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The petitioner was a Lab Assistant in the higher secondary wing of the second respondent school. He has approved service from 28.3.2003. While so, a vacancy in the post of L.D.C. arose in the High School wing in June, 2007. Though the petitioner staked her claim for appointment in that vacancy, the Manager appointed the third respondent, who is a fresh hand from the open market. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the third respondent and inaction of the D.E.O., the writ petition was filed. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the first respondent, D.E.O., to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation filed by the writ petitioner. Dissatisfied with the above direction, this writ appeal is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Since the learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant has to pursue the WA No.1340/09 - 2 - departmental remedy invoked by him, we feel that it is not proper for us to interfere with the said view in appeal. When the learned Single judge has declined to consider the matter on merits in view of the pendency of the dispute before the D.E.O., the Division Bench will not be justified in considering the matter on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)