IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1629 of 2010(C) PETITIONER(S): HEMA V.NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.LATE V.V.NAIR, SWARNAMALA HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR, P.O.THIRUVALLA VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., NOW RESIDING AT CHERUKARA HOUSE, KALLOOPARA P.O THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VANDOOR, MALAPPPURAM DIST. 5. THE MANAGER, THACHINGANADAM HIGH SCHOOL, THACHINGANADAM P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. SREEREJNATH, H.S.A.(MATHS) THACHINGANADAM HIGH SCHOOL, THACHINGANADAM PO PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 7. RAJASREE S.VARIER, OF DO....DO 8. AMEEN ALTHAF OF DO...DO. 9. NISHA KUMAR OF DO...DO.. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 1629 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Rule 51B claimant under Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' only). Her father died-in-harness while in service of the fifth respondent. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application for appointment under Dying in-harness Scheme under Rule 51B Chapter XIV A of the Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the receipt of Ext.P3 application for appointment, the fifth respondent appointed respondents 6 to 9 without duly considering her claim. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P13 revision petition. Since the revision petition has already been filed before the first respondent, I do not think that this Court should consider the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition at this stage. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 revision petition submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of W.P.(C) NO.1629/2010 2 receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before passing orders on Ext.P13 revision petition, the persons who are likely to be effected viz., respondents 5 to 9 should also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.1629/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.1629/2010 JUDGMENT 19th May, 2010