IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20288 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.CHANDRIKA, PRINCIPAL, AMHSS, THIRUMALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGER,AMHSS THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695006 4. DEO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR FOR ADDL.R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN -R1, R2 AND R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J ------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20288 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Principal of A.M.H.S.S., Thirumala. It was while working as Headmistress of the 3rd respondent's school that she was given the said appointment. As per Ext.P4 the said appointment made as per Ext.P2 was declined to be approved by the 2nd respondent. In fact, it was rejected on the ground that the appointment was not in accordance with G.O.(MS) No.11/06 G.Edn., dated 6.1.2006 and the conditions stipulated in the special rules. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the Government Order dated 6.1.2006 referred to in Ext.P4 order is totally inapplicable in her case. After the institution of this Writ Appeal the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 before the first respondent. The petitioner has taken up all such contentions in the W.P.(C) NO.20288 OF 2010 2 appeal. The Manager of the school has also preferred an appeal against Ext.P4 order as Ext.P5. Thus, Exts.P5 and P8 appeals are pending before the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have already approached the appellate authority filing Exts.P5 and P8 respectively, I do not think it appropriate to look into the merits of their contentions at this stage. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P8 appeals preferred respectively by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In this writ petition, an I.A. was moved by one Mrs. K.S.Sandhya to get herself impleaded as Additional respondent No.5. In view of the nature of the directions issued as above, this impleading W.P.(C) NO.20288 OF 2010 3 petition need not be allowed at this stage. However, the 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner in I.A.No.10059/2010 before passing orders on Exts.P5 and P8. In case, petitioner files any petition before the 4th respondent for getting disbursement of her salary at the rate attached to the post of Headmistress within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment the 4th respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon in the light of Ext.P7 Government Order, within a further period of two weeks. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. pm