IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26016 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GIRIJA.R, W/O.K.S.MANOJKUMAR, KALATHIL HOUSE, KANNADI.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUZHALMANNAM. 6. THE MANAGER, ABUP SCHOOL, KANNADI.P.O, KANNADI, PALAKKAD DIST. 7. SOUMYA.V, D/O.VELUKUTTY.C.A, NELLIYAMPADAM, POLPULLY.P.O, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) FOR R7 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26016/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be a 51A claimant. 2. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has issued Ext.P10 directing that she be appointed. In this writ petition what is sought for is a direction for the implementation of Ext.P10. 3. It would appear that both the Manager and the 7th respondent, the teacher who has been appointed subsequently, have challenged Ext.P10 by filing Exts.R7(d) appeal before the DEO and Ext.R7(b) revision before the DPI. In view of the pendency of the matter before the higher authorities as above, it is not proper for this court to compel the 6th respondent to implement Ext.P10 at this stage. 4. Since the appeal filed by the Manager is pending before the 4th respondent, a copy of which has been 2 produced as Ext.R7(d), it is only appropriate that the 4th respondent shall dispose of the said appeal with notice to the petitioner and the respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. i. The 4th respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.R7(d) appeal filed by the Manager with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ii. The DPI need not consider Ext.R7(b) revision filed against Ext.P10, since the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal. iii. In the meanwhile, until the disposal of the appeal, the interim order passed on 28.8.2008 staying the approval of appointment of the 7th respondent shall be in force. Petitioner shall produce a a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. vi ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE 3