IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15552 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, M.T.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PAMPAKKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. GEN. EDUCATIION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 15552 of 2010 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Manager of M.T.M. Higher Secondary School, Pampakkuda. One teacher by name Jasmin C. Johny was appointed as High School Assistant in the school. However, the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P3 declined to approve the said appointment. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25563/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of relegating the petitioner to resort to the alternate remedy available under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R. After Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 revision petition before the Government challenging Ext.P3. This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the undue delay in the matter of disposal of the said revision petition. 2. A revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of K.E.R. is maintainable against Ext.P3. The petitioner has already filed Ext.P6 revision as contemplated under Rule 92. Therefore, the 1st respondent is bound to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6. Since the revision petition was filed as early as on 22-09-2009, WPC.15552/2010 : 2 : I think the petitioner is justified in contending that any further delay would adversely affect the petitioner as also the concerned teacher. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months, with notice to the petitioner as also the teacher concerned. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge