IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 26690 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- 1. SUSMITHA R.NAIR, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARUMALA. 2. MINI.T.NAIR, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PARUMALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS/SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. N.R.SUBHASREE, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KJM DB UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM. 5. T.R.LALITHAMANI, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, DEVASWOM BOARD HIGH SCHOOL, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26690 OF 2008 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the delay in the disposal of Ext. P4, a revision filed by respondents 4 and 5 herein against Ext. P1 order passed by the District Educational Officer, the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, soon after Ext. P4 was filed respondents 4 and 5 had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 7014/08 which was disposed of by Ext. P5 judgment directing disposal of the revision and granting stay of recovery in the meanwhile. It is stated that although the period prescribed by this Court for the disposal of the revision has expired long ago, there has not been any progress in the matter. 2. When this writ petition came up for orders on 3.9.2008 the case was adjourned with a direction to the Govt. Pleader to obtain instructions on to the progress they have made in the disposal of Ext. P4. Today, on instructions, it is informed that the 1st respondent W.P.(C) No. 26690 OF 2008 -2- in in the process of disposing of Ext. P4 which confirms the case of the petitioners that Ext. P4 has not been disposed of so far. 3. Evidently, the period prescribed by this Court in Ext. P5 for the disposal of Ext. P4 revision has already expired and at the same time respondents 4 and 5 are enjoying the benefit of the stay order passed by this Court also. This certainly is a situation prejudicial to the petitioners. Therefore it is essential that the 1st respondent disposes of Ext. P4 revision without any further delay in the matter. Accordingly, I direct that Ext. P4 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that notice shall be given to the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 and that Exts. P6 and P7 shall also be adverted to if the same have been received. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent along with a copy of the writ petition, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-