IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33617 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHIMOLE K.M. AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. J,.VIJAYAKUMAR KARAKKAD HOUSE, THENGANA, PERUMPANACHI P.O. CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, HSA (SOCIAL SCIENCE) AVHSS, KURICHY, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O.KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ATTINGAL. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER S.N.D.S, TRUST SCHOOLS, SIVAGIRI, MUTT,VARKALA. 6. THE HEADMASTER, A.V.HIGH SCHOOL SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O., KURICHY, KOTTAYAM. 7. S.SREEKALA HSA MATHS, SIVAGIRI HSS, VARKALA SREENIVASAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33617/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The case pleaded in this writ petition is that the petitioner was working as UPSA and subsequently in 1998, he was appointed as HSA(Social Science) under the 5th respondent. Later her appointment as UPSA was canceled with effect from 4.6.1996 and by Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent held that the petitioner cannot continue as such also. Ext.P2 was challenged before this court in O.P.No.18693/99 resulting in Ext.P3 judgment quashing Ext.P2 Government Order canceling her appointment as UPSA and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. This lead to Ext.P4 Government Order where the Government took the view that there are sufficient periods to continue the petitioner as HSA. It is stated that consequential orders have not been passed pursuant to Ext.P4 and there upon WP(c).No.33617/2008 2 the petitioner has filed Exts.P5 and P6 before the first respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the complaint is mainly regarding the delay in passing orders consequent to Ext.P4, which grievance has been raised by the petitioner before the first respondent by filing Exts.P5 and P6. 3. If as stated Exts.P5 and P6 have been received and are pending, necessarily the first respondent shall take action thereon as is warranted in law. This the first respondent shall do by considering Exts.P5 and P6 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.33617/2008 3