IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12021 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REEJA V.P. HSA (MALAYALAM), ZAINUDEEN MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, POOLAMANGALAM,PUNNATHALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 12021 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant(Malayalam) in Zainudeen Memorial High School, Poolamangalam, Punnathala, Malappuram District as per Ext.P1. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P2 staff fixation for the year 2008-09, one division was reduced. Consequently, the petitioner was retrenched. The contention of the petitioner is that based on Ext.P3 G.O. Dated 20.9.2008, he is entitled to get the benefit of the reduced teacher student ratio of 1:40 and for retention in service. Taking into account the said Ext.P3 Government Order, the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P4 order revising the staff fixation order. However, Ext.P4 order was subsequently cancelled by the 3rd respondent during his verification of staff fixation as per Ext.P5. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected as per Ext.P6 order. It is against Ext.P6 that the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition. WPC.12021 OF 2010 : 2 : 2. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision as contemplated under the provisions of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. After filing this writ petition, the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P7 revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Now that the petitioner has chosen to resort to the remedy as contemplated under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV- A of Kerala Education Rules, I think this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders thereon. Accordingly, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P6 expeditiously, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge