IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 29953 of 2008(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P. SOYA, W/O. LATE GOPAKUMAR, AGED 56, PONGALADY, THATTAYIL P.O., PANDALAM. [THE MANAGER, S.V.G.S, PONGALADY] BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, (D.P.I) JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, O/o. D.P.I. JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 29953 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Manager of an aided school. Ext. P1 is an order passed by the 1st respondent fixing liability on the petitioner, for the amount irregularly paid. Against Ext. P1, petitioner filed Ext. p2 revision before the 2nd respondent along with a request for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1. Thereafter she filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 17991/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment with the following directions: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent, the Director of Public Instruction, to dispose of Ext. P4 revision as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three months. The Director of Public Instruction shall consider whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of stay as prayed for in the stay petition filed by him along with Ext. P4 revision. The Director of Public Instruction shall take a decision in the stay petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that I have not expressed W.P.(C) No. 29953 OF 2008 -2- any view on the merits of the case.” It is also stated by the petitioner that yet another teacher affected by Ext. P1 has filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 16285/08 and in that writ petition, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 have been stayed by Ext. P4 order which according to the petitioner has been extended thereafter. In the meanwhile, following Ext. p3 judgment, hearing of the revision petition was scheduled by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P5 hearing notice. Petitioner submits that the revision was fully heard and even argument notes have been submitted and that orders are awaited in the matter. While matters stand thus, the 1st respondent has issued Ext. P7 proposing to proceed with the fixing of actual financial loss sustained by the Government as a consequence of Ext. P1. It is aggrieved by Ext. P7, this writ petition is filed. 2. From the facts as stated above, it is evident that aggrieved by the basic order, viz. Ext. P1, petitioner has already moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext. P2 revision. As is evident from Ext. P5 notice of hearing the matter was heard on 29.8.2008 and orders are awaited. It is also evident that in the meanwhile, further W.P.(C) No. 29953 OF 2008 -3- proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 has been stayed by this Court as per Ext. P4 order passed in a writ petition filed by yet another teacher affected by Ext. P1. At this stage, in my view, the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P7 are premature. At least the proceedings should await the disposal of Ext. P2 revision, which as noticed above, has already been heard. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to defer further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7, until orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on Ext. P2 revision filed by the petitioner against Ext. P1. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-