IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25019 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOYCIE E.J., W/O.MOHANDAS KALARIKKAL, 'BETHEL', PAVUMKANDY PARAMBA, NEAR VRINDAVAN COLONY, CHEVAYUR, CALICUT 673 017. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, C.S.I.SCHOOL IN MALABAR AND WAYANAD, C.S.I.CORPORATE MANAGER'S OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- PIN 695 014. 6. LINDA JASMINE HENRY, B.E.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MELPARAMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. PETER DEVDAS P.V., B.E.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PARAPPANAGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 303. 8. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC) GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 014. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 25019 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 21st August, 2008 J U D G M E N T In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.2, 6 and 7. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and 8. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext .P1 order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Ext.P1 order was passed pursuant to the direction issued by this court as per the judgment dated 02.06.2008 in W.P.(C) No.14727 of 2008 filed by the sixth respondent, Linda Jasmine Henry. The seventh respondent in this Writ Petition (Peter Devadas) was the fourth respondent therein. The petitioner was the third respondent in the Writ Petition (C)No. 14727 of 2008. As per the judgment dated 02.06.2008, the Director of Public Instruction was directed to dispose of the three appeals pending before him, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner was heard and Ext. P1 order was passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Though the petitioner filed a Review Petition, viz., R.P.No. 721 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No. 14727 of 2008, it was dismissed on 09.07.2008 as per Exhibit P11 order. At the time of hearing of the Review Petition, the petitioner herein contended that against the order dated W.P.(C) No. 25019 OF 2008 2 17.07.2007 passed by the District Educational Officer, Kozhikode rejecting the contention of the petitioner regarding her relinquishment to the post of Headmaster, she had filed a Revision before the Government and that Revision was not disposed of. 3. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P1 order. Against Ext. P1 order, a Revision lies under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R. 4. After filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed Ext. P12 Revision before the Government. Ext. P12 Revision is pending disposal. In the Revision, the petitioner has also prayed for stay of operation of Ext. P1 order dated 05.08.2008. 5. In view of pendency of Ext. P12 Revision, the challenge against Ext. P1 order cannot be made in this Writ Petition. However, Ext.P12 Revision is liable to be disposed of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. Learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P12 Revision would be disposed of within a reasonable time. 6. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner had filed W.P.(C)No. 20525 of 2008, in which a direction was issued to the Government to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner . It is submitted that the said W.P.(C) No. 25019 OF 2008 3 representation is marked as Ext. P6 in the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if Ext. P12 Revision is disposed of along with Ext.P6 representation which is referred to in W.P.(C)No. 20525 of 2008, it would be beneficial to all the parties concerned and that conflicting decisions could be avoided. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: i) The Government shall dispose of Ext. P12 Revision dated 19.08.2008 filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2, 6 and 7. ii) The Government shall dispose of Ext. P12 Revision along with the representation (Ext. P6) submitted by the petitioner, which was directed to be disposed of, as per the judgment dated 15th July, 2008 in W.P.(C)No. 20525 of 2008, irrespective of the direction to dispose of the same within two months. iii) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition and also a copy of I.A.No. 10978 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No. 25019 of 2008 before the Government. iv) The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment to respondent Nos.2,6 and 7 by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before W.P.(C) No. 25019 OF 2008 4 the Government. v) The petitioner would be free to press for an interim order before the Government in the Revision filed by her, in which case, the said prayer shall be considered expeditiously, after hearing all the parties concerned. vi) It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk