IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19539 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANN JACOB, W/O.REV.JACOB K.MATHEW, EBENEZER HOUSE, CHUMATHRA P.O., THIRUVALLA 1, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.T.NIKLAVU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, THE MARTHOMA AND E.A.SCHOOLS, SCS CAMPUS, THIRUVALLA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 19539 of 2010 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an aided school teacher. She was earlier appointed as H.S.A.(Physical Science) in A.M.M.H.S., Othera under the fourth respondent. The said appointment was approved. When her husband took up employment as Vicar of Carmel Marthoma Church in U.S.A., the petitioner had to leave the country along with him. In the said circumstances, according to the petitioner, she has submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 11- 06-2007. Treating the same as a permanent relinquishment of the claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, the fourth respondent effected further appointments ignoring her 51A claim. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the fourth respondent in ignoring her claim under Rule 51A, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 before respondents 1 to 3. The third respondent is competent to look into the aforesaid aspects at the first instance. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner has approached the third respondent by filing Ext.P5 and the third respondent is competent to look into the WPC.19539/2010 : 2 : grievance of the petitioner raised in Ext.P5, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge