IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7401 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.R.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.K.RAMAN NAIR, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGH SCHOOL, RANNI- PERUNAD, PATHANAMTHITTA- 685 711. BY ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, RANNI-PERUNAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-685 711. 4. SMT.S.LEKHA, HEADMISTRESS, HIGH SCHOOL, RANNI-PERUNAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-678 711. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.7401/2011-A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 revision petition filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules. 2. The petitioner is working as a High School Assistant. It is the case of the petitioner that the approved seniority list has become final. Therefore, it is pointed out that, in the light of the decision in Pavithran v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 20], the seniority position cannot be disturbed normally. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that overlooking the seniority of the petitioner, the fourth respondent, who is junior to the petitioner, was appointed as Headmistress from 01/04/2010. The same was challenged in appeal before the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P3. Again a provisional seniority list was published whereby, the petitioner is rank No.4 and the fourth respondent is rank No.3 which W.P.(C). No.7401/2011 -:2:- was also objected to by the petitioner as per Ext.P4. The District Educational Officer by Ext.P6 order rejected his appeal. It is also evident from the said order that the fresh seniority list has been finally approved on 20/12/2010 and the order approving the seniority list is produced as Ext.P7. The approval of appointment of the fourth respondent has also been granted as per Ext.P9. These are the matters which have been taken up before the revisional authorities as per Ext.P10. 3. There will be a direction to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P10 after hearing the petitioner and the Manager within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the Judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE