IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16641 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JUDIMOL S W/O.SANDEEP, AGED 35 YEARS, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, A.G.R.M.H.S, SCHOOL, VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA 670 501. 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 DEPARMENT,SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER A.G.R.M.H.S.SCHOOL, VALLIKUNNAM ALAPPUZHA 670 501. 5. SMT. SUBHA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT A.G.R.M.H.S.SCHOOL,VALLIKUNNAM ALAPPUZHA 670 501. 6. SMT. P.K.SAJEENA W/O.ABDUL RAHIM, MANGALASSERY HOUSE P.O.THAMARAKKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 670 505. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J ---------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16641 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Natural Science) with effect from 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2008 in A.G.R.M.H.S. School, Vallikunnam. Pendency of the management dispute results in non- approval of the said appointment. However, in revision Government directed the 2nd respondent to approve his appointment. Pursuant to the same the said appointment was approved as per Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent was appointed as UPSA from 02.06.2008 to 31.03.2009 and the petitioner raised his objection against the said appointment in the light of the decision reported in Geetha Vs. Geo Thomas [2009 (4) KLT 514]. But, without considering the legal issue involved in the matter the 3rd respondent approved the appointment of the 5th respondent from 02.06.2008 to 31.03.2009. On 01.06.2009 a retirement vacancy arose in the school. The 2 WP(C) No. 16641/2010 4th respondent appointed the 5th respondent against the said vacancy. Aggrieved by the said appointment the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 objection before the 3rd respondent. Later, the petitioner was appointed as UPSA from 01.06.2009 in an anticipated sanction of post. However, the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P5. Against Ext.P5 the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent rejected Ext.P4 representation as per Ext.P7 order dated 29.03.2010. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Exts.P6 and P8 are still pending before the 2nd respondent. 2. Considering the fact that Exts.P6 and P8 filed respectively against Exts.P5 and P7 are pending before the 2nd respondent, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P8 3 WP(C) No. 16641/2010 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd respondent shall also afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 prior to the passing of orders as directed. Any appointment of the 5th respondent shall be subject to the decision on Ext.P6. C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE jma