IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2040 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUMA.E., H.S.A. (MALAYALAM) PULIYAPARAMBA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD-678 004. 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, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678 004. 3. THE MANAGER, PULIYAPARAMBA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD - 678 004. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2040 Of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The limited prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P12 revision petition, pending. 2. The 3rd respondent is the Manager of the School and the petitioner was appointed as HSA as per order dated 10.1.2003 in an anticipated post. The said post was not sanctioned by the 2nd respondent while issuing staff fixation order, Exhibit P1. The Manager filed an appeal and further revision from the appellate order against it; but it was dismissed and again a revision was filed before the Government. The Government allowed the revision by Exhibit P2 order. Accordingly a direction was issued to sanction the additional divisions and the posts required for the year 2002-03. According to the petitioner while issuing the consequential order Exhibit P3, the 2nd respondent committed an illegality in not sanctioning the post of HSA(Malayalam). Staff fixation orders upto 2009-10 also are in tune with it. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner W.P.(C)No.2040/11 -2- approached the Government by filing Exhibit P12, styled as a revision petition. 3. Since the petitioner complains that Exhibit P12 has not been disposed of so far, there will be a direction to the Government to take a decision in accordance with law on Exhibit P12 after hearing the petitioner and the Manager within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to judge