IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 35288 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- N.K.KUTTY KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.A.P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, MANAGER, A.S.V.U.P. SCHOOL, EDAKKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SANTHI NILAYAM, KANNANKARA P.O., CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE 673616. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BALUSSERY. 4. M.SYAMALA, HEADMISTRESS, A.S.V.U.P.SCHOOL, EDAKKARA, CHELANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE 673 616. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 35288 OF 2008 (A) ==================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, the Manager of an aided school placed the Headmistress of the school under suspension and Ext.P7 is the order. That order was cancelled by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P12 order. It is stated that subsequently by Ext.P14, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to reinstate the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, before receipt of Ext.P14, he had filed Ext.P15 revision before the 1st respondent, against Ext.P12 order passed by the 3rd respondent cancelling Ext.P7 order of suspension. In this writ petition, what the petitioner submits is that while the revision is pending, he is being forced to implement Ext.P12, by Ext.P14 order issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore what the petitioner seeks is an order for expeditious disposal of Ext.P15 revision. 2. As already noticed, Ext.P15 revision filed by the petitioner is a statutory one and that is pending consideration of the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P14 petitioner has also been directed to reinstate the 4th respondent. This situation necessarily calls for an expeditious disposal of the revision. 3. In view of this, writ petition is disposed of with the following WPC 35288/08 :2 : directions. 4. That the 1st respondent shall take up and consider Ext.P15 revision filed by the petitioner with notice to him and also the 4th respondent. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. In the meanwhile, on the production of a copy of this judgment, it will be open to the petitioner to move the 1st respondent for early hearing of the petitioner's request for interlocutory orders on Ext.P15 and thereupon the same shall be considered without any further delay in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent along with a copy of this writ petition for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp