IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23714 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, R.P.M.HIGH SCHOOL, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, POST ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. SMT.SREEDEVI, SREYAS, WARRIAM ROAD, POST ERNAKULAM-682 011. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN - R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J ------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.23714 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent. As per Ext.P1 petitioner was approved as Manager of R.P.M. High School for a period of 5 years with effect from 19.9.2004. Subsequently, term of his Managership was extended, as per Ext.P3, for a further period of 5 years from 19.9.2009. It is contended that reference No.1 in Ext.P4 would suggest that the said order was passed at the instance of the 4th respondent. However, the specific case of the petitioner is that the copy of the said petition dated 23.3.2010 referred to in Ext.P4 was not served on him and he was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of Ext.P4. The further contention of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent had, in fact, filed the petition dated 23.3.2010 much beyond the period of limitation and as such, it was not maintainable. In short, according to the W.P.(C) NO.23714 OF 2010 2 petitioner, violation of the principle of natural justice had caused her considerable prejudice. Raising all such contentions the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P5 revision petition dated, 12.7.2010. In the said revision petition, the petitioner has also moved a stay petition viz.Ext.P5(a). It is apprehending further delay the matter of disposal of Ext P5 and P5(a) that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Pending disposal of the said revision petition the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P(5) stay petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. pm