IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10451 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GINCY M.CHELAPPUZHAYIL,W/O.DENNY GEORGE, AGED 29 YEARS,LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, S.N.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL,VANNAPPURAM,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI AT THODUPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCTIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER,S.N.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL, VANNAPPURAM,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. SRI.RANJU BABU,LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,S.N.M.V.H.S.SCHOOL,VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. DILEEP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 10451 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in S.N.M.V.H.S School, Vannappuram, Thodupuzha in anticipation of new post, from 5.6.2006. However, the said appointment was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 dated 1.1.2007. The contention of the petitioner is that age wise he is senior to the 6th respondent and therefore, he should have been appointed against the regular vacancy in place of the 6th respondent. Instead of appointing the petitioner against the regular vacancy, the 6th respondent was appointed against the regular vacancy and the petitioner was appointed against the anticipated vacancy and, evidently, both the appointments were made with effect from 5.6.2006. It is the said irregular action in the matter of appointment that culminated in non-approval of the petitioner's appointment, it is contented. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P2. Later, the petitioner has approached the second respondent by filing a revision petition. Apprehending undue delay in the matter of disposal WPC.10451/2010 : 2 : of the said revision petition, he had approached this court by filing WP(C)No.31732/2009 and the same was disposed as per Ext.P7. Thereupon Ext.P8 order was passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Against Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing a revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Ext.P9 Revision Petition is dated 11.3.2010. According to the petitioner, any further delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P9 would put him in prejudice. 2. Ext.P9 is the revision petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P8 under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Being a revision filed as provided in a specific provision under KER, the first respondent is duty bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 revision petition within a period of two months with notice to the petitioner and also respondents 5 and 6. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma