IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 35338 of 2008(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P. ANASUDHEEN, S/O. KUTTIHASSAN HAJEE, AGED 29 YEARS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (URDU), P.K.M.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDARIKODE - 676 501, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. SRI. MUHAMMED BASHEER, MANAGER, P.K.M.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDARIKODE - 676 501, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 35338 OF 2008 (F) ==================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8, P9 and P11. 2. Facts of the case show that by Ext.P5, petitioner was promoted and appointed as HSST(Junior), Urdu in the PKMM Higher Secondary School, Edarikode of which, the 4th respondent is the Manager. Approval sought for was rejected by Ext.P8. Appeal and revision were also rejected by Exts.P9 and P11. The reason stated for rejection of approval stated in these orders is that there was no sanctioned post of HSST (Junior) Urdu. 3. Counsel for the petitioner refers me to Exts.P1 to P4. By Ext.P1, the Manager sought permission of the 1st respondent to start Urdu as second language in the school and that application is dated 20/6/05. Counsel submits that subsequently, the 2nd respondent conducted inspection of the school and confirmed the student strength and forwarded his favourable report by Ext.P3. It is stated that thereafter the 3rd respondent also participated in the selection committee, the minutes of which is Ext.P4, based on which by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was appointed. WPC 35338/08 :2 : 4. True, the Manager has sought permission to start Urdu as second language and for sanctioning the post, but the fact remains that inspite of all that has happened, post has not been sanctioned so far. If post has not been sanctioned, the rejection of approval as per Ext.P8, which is confirmed by Exts. P9 and P11 cannot be faulted. Therefore, the first order which should have been obtained by the Manager was for sanctioning the post as sought for by Ext.P1. Therefore, I am not in a position to find fault with Exts. P8, P9 or P11. 5. Now that according to the Manager, the permission sought for by Ext.P1 is still pending consideration of the 1st respondent, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same in the light of Exts.P2 and P3. Exts.P6 and P7 are also two orders which are relied on by the petitioners to contend that in similarly situated schools, post has been sanctioned. Relevance of these orders is also a matter to be considered by the 1st respondent. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the Manager to pursue Ext.P1 before the 1st respondent and depending on its outcome, seek approval of the appointment made. If the Manager or the petitioner seeks an opportunity of hearing, that will also be considered by the 1st respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp