IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37451 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANAGER, H.L.P.S.MALESAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. 5. SMT.LEENA.N., L.P.S.A., H.L.P.S.MALESAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 37451 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the manager of an aided school. He sought approval of appointment of the 5th respondent, which was rejected on the ground that there is a ban imposed by the Government against new appointments. The petitioner's appeal etc., were also rejected on the same ground. The petitioner now submits that by Ext. P8 order dated 12.1.2010, the Government has already lifted the ban and also directed reconsideration of the cases already pending, notwithstanding the fact that appeals/revisions are pending. The petitioner therefore submits that it is only appropriate that the 4th respondent reconsiders the matter of approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent in the light of Ext. P8. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the claim can be reconsidered, provided the petitioner is prepared to furnish a bond undertaking to appoint a protected teacher. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the question of approval of appointment of the 5th respondent in the light of Ext. P8 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/