IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25018 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE MANAGER, YOGINI MATHA GIRL'S HIGH SCHOOL, KOLLAMKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, POST PALAKKAD-678 014. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, POST PALAKKAD-678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHAN R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 25018 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Manager of Yogini Matha Girls' High School, Kollamkode in Palakkad District. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order. A regular vacancy of High School Assistant in English arose in the school from 7.7.2009. In the said vacancy the petitioner has appointed one V.G. Valsala as per Ext.P1 order. However, the 3rd respondent declined to approve the said appointment citing the reason that the said post has to be filled up by promoting the UPSA. According to the 3rd respondent one Sri. Arun Babu should have been accommodated against the said vacancy. However, the said Arun Babu is qualified only for appointment as HSA(Mathematics) and at the same time, excess hands are available in the said category. Therefore, a further promotion to the said category could not have been effected. Pointing out the said aspects the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent as per Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is dated 27.7.2010. The contention of the WPC.25018/2010 : 2 : petitioner is that since it is a statutory appeal, the second respondent is bound to consider and pass orders thereon. Further, it is contended that the 3rd respondent is bound to grant approval of appointment effected as per Ext.P1 taking into account the aforesaid aspects. These are matters which are to be considered by the second respondent while considering Ext.P4 appeal. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 appeal expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and any other person/persons likely to be affected in case of an order favourable to the petitioner. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge