IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35221 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ROBY MATHEW, H.S.A. (ENGLISH), ST.JOSEPH'S BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 2. BINU C.MANI, H.S.A. (MATHS.), ST.JOSEPH'S BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 3. SURAJ DOMINIC.S.J., H.S.A. (ENGLISH), ST.JOSEPH'S BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 4. FR.THADEYOOR.S., SJ, H.S.A. (SOCIAL STUDIES), ST.JOSEPH'S BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KOZHIKODE-673 032. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. SONI MATHEW, KUTTIKATTUMANNIL, THIRUVAMPADY.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN-673 693. BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35221 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners were appointed as HSAs in St.Joseph's Boys' Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode. The District Educational Officer declined approval of the appointment of the petitioners as per Exts.P10 to P13 orders. Challenging those orders, the Manager filed appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed the appeals, as per Exts.P14 to P16. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge Exts.P10 to P16 orders. There is also a prayer to issue a direction to the District Educational Officer to approve the appointments of the petitioners and to disburse the salary and other monetary benefits to the petitioners. 2. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that under Rule 8A of Chapter XIV A KER, the W.P.(C).No.35221 OF 2010 2 petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing revision before the Director of Public Instruction. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have an alternative remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only ground on which the approval was rejected was that the Rule 51A claim put forward by the 4 th respondent was pending. The learned counsel submits that the question whether the 4 th respondent is entitled to preferential claim under Rule 51A is pending before the Government. It is also submitted that even if the claim made by the 4 th respondent is genuine, it would affect the appointment of only one of the petitioners. It is submitted that in such a case, the appointment of the 3 rd petitioner alone need be declined and the appointment of the other petitioners could be approved. This contention could very well be taken in revision before the Director of Public Instruction. 3. Since the petitioners have an effective W.P.(C).No.35221 OF 2010 3 alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The contention put forward by the petitioners can be considered by the Director of Public Instruction in the revision which the petitioners may file. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms