IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22631 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DONNA JOSE VADAKKEN, AGED 23, D/O.LATE BEENA, VADAKKEN HOUSE, MATHA NAGAR, PALLIPPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 006. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WAYANAD, KALPETTA NORTH, PIN-673 122. 2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF CSI DIOCESAN, SCHOOLS IN MALABAR & WAYANAD, BANK ROAD, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. JESSY LINET, PARAMBIATH, THOTTINGAL, NURANI P.O., PALAKKAD-678 004. BY SRI. DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 22631 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the action on the part of the second respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent against the regular vacancy occurred in the category of HSA (English) on 1.6.2010 ignoring her claim under Rule 51 A, Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. Thereafter, the second respondent virtually recognized the 51(B) claim of the petitioner and she was given a posting as HSA(English) in B.E.M.G.H.S, Calicut against the leave vacancy. According to the petitioner against the regular vacancy of HSA (English) occurred on 1.6.2010, she should have been appointed in place of the 3rd respondent who is a fresh hand. Raising her grievance against the order appointing the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P13 petition. Ext.P13 is pending before the first respondent. When a petition is filed before a competent authority raising grievances against the action of a Manager in not honouring the 51B claim under Chapter XIV A of KER, such authority has WPC 22631/2010 2 a legal duty to look into the same and pass appropriate orders. Evidently, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P13 raising her grievances against the appointment of the 3rd respondent. In this circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 representation/objection dated 15.6.2010 filed by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, before approving the appointment of the 3rd respondent with notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. In case, the appointment of the 3rd respondent was approved, such appointment and approval would be subject to the decision to be taken on Ext.P3. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy/ P.A to Judge