IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2010 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14842 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O.SUBHASHKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL STUDIES), GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SMT.U.SHANIBA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER,J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.14842 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that she has been working as High School Assistant (Social Studies) from June 06,2002 in Girls High School, Ponnani, which is an aided institution. 2. But it appears that petitioner has been ordered to be retrenched from service pursuant to an order issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram on March 02, 2010. Even prior to this, the Deputy Director of Education had issued Ext.P1 order holding that the appointment of respondent No.5 as High School Assistant (Physical Science) is liable to be approved. Petitioner is aggrieved with both orders referred to above. 3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal before respondent No.1 against Ext.P1 order. Similarly, she has also preferred Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P3 order of "fixation of establishment of staff" in the school for the academic year 2009-2010. Though the petitioner has called in question the correctness of Ext.P6 order passed by respondent No.3 W.P (C) No.14842 of 2010 2 retrenching the petitioner from service with effect from July 15, 2009, learned counsel submits that no relief is now being sought against Ext.P6 order in this writ petition. Further, he submits that he has already moved respondent No.1 seeking stay of operation of Ext.P6 order. 4. The limited prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5 appeals submitted by the petitioner against Exts.P1 and P3 respectively. 5. The learned Government Pleader has also been heard. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5 appeals strictly on their merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that respondent No.1 shall afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Manager of the school and also respondent No.5 and all W.P (C) No.14842 of 2010 3 others who are likely to be affected by the order that may be passed by him. 7. It is made clear that, I have not considered in merit any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It will be open to respondent No.1 to take a decision in the matter, in accordance with law. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.14842 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No.14842 of 2010 5