IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21492 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DEEPA VARGHESE, W/O.P.X.JOHN, AGED 36 YEARS,PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST.MARY'S U.P.SCHOOL, KUMALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SAJJAD, SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCAITON DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVADRUM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 4. THE ASSITANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-680 011. 5. THE MANAGER, ST.MARY'S U.P.SCHOOL, KUMBALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 506. R1 TO R4 BY GOVENMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 21492 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in St.Mary's U.P.School, Kumbalam. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be shifted from the post of UPSA to LPSA. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 appeal before the 4th respondent against Ext.P2 order. Without going into the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4, the 4th respondent passed Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 the petitioner has to approach the Manager for redressal of her grievance. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Evidently, the grievance of the petitioner is against the action on the part of the 5th respondent-Manager in passing Ext.P5 shifting the petitioner from the post of UPSA to LPSA. It is raising grievances against the same that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5. In the said circumstances, the 4th respondent should have considered Ext.P4 on merits instead of directing the petitioner to approach the 5th WPC.21492/2010 : 2 : respondent. 3. I am of the considered view that the action on the part of the 4th respondent in directing the petitioner to approach the second respondent without deciding Ext.P4 on merits cannot be sustained in the aforesaid circumstances. Therefore, to enable the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P4 on merits, Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, the 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 on merits expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner, 5th respondent and any other teacher who is likely to be effected in case of issuance of an order favourable to the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge