IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31410 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL NAZER.K.P., HSST(ARABIC) MAR THOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM. 2. BEENA.T. CHERIAN, HSST(BOTANY) DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECONDARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE 4. MANAGER, MAR THOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM. 5. REENA MARY ABRAHAM, HSST (ENGLISH) PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE, MAR THOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31410/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are two HSSTs in the school of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. There was a vacancy of Principal and the 5th respondent was posted as Principal in charge. The contention of the petitioners is that the 5th respondent was not qualified as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. It is stated that, by Ext.P4 approval was rejected and there upon by Exts.P5 and P6 the petitioner claimed the post occupied by the 5th respondent. By Ext.P7 the Manager replied stating that the appeal against Ext.P4 is pending before the 2nd respondent. There upon Ext.P8 representation was submitted by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent to which also no response has been received. It is in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed. WP(c).No.31410/2008 2 2. As already noticed, the claim of the petitioners is that since as on the date of occurrence of vacancy the 5th respondent was unqualified and therefore he could not have been posted as Principal in charge. Now that the matter is pending in appeal before the 2nd respondent, the fate of the claim raised by the petitioners will depend upon the decision to be taken in the appeal. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal filed by the 4th respondent against Ext.P4 order rejecting the approval. This the second respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Depending upon the outcome of the appeal, a decision on Ext.P8 shall also be taken by the 2nd respondent. Needless to say that a decision on appeal will be taken with notice to respondent 4 and 5. WP(c).No.31410/2008 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.31410/2008 4