IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 30384 of 2008 (P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE MANGER, GRACY MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, PARATHODE- 686 512,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY. 5. SMT. MANJOOSHA MATHEW, AMBATTUPOTHIYIL, THIDANAD P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30384 OF 2008 (P) ==================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, an order passed by the Government declining to stay the order of the DPI declining approval of the appointment of the fifth respondent. The main argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Ext.P4 judgment, the Government ought to have considered the request for stay within one month and thereafter, within three months, the revision itself ought to have considered. It is stated that the revision itself has been heard on 19.9.2008 and stay has been declined by Ext.P6 order dated 18.9.2008, and that too without notice. 2. As directed in the judgment, the Government had the obligation to consider the stay petition within one month and that is what the Government have done in this case. Therefore, Ext.P6 cannot be said to be in violation of the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order was passed without notice to him. A reading of Ext.P4 judgment shows that there was no direction requiring the Government to issue notice to the petitioner. That apart, no prejudice by want of notice, is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. WPC 30384/08 :2 : 3. Now that the Government have heard the revision itself and orders are awaited, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jj