IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23264 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE ROSHAN P., ATTENDER, ST.MICHAEL'S ANGLO INDIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. THE MANAGER, ST.MICHAEL'S ANGLO INDIA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR. 6. LOVNA SURESH, TEACHER (UNAPPROVED) ST.MICHAEL'S ANGLO INDIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR. 7. DIANA YESUDAS, TEACHER (ON DAILY WAGES) (UNAPPROVED), ST.MICHAEL'S ANGLO INDIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.23264/2009-C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Attender in the St.Michael's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Kannur. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that overlooking the claims of the petitioner, the vacancies of U.P.S.A have been filled up by appointing respondents 6 and 7, by the Manager. 2. The petitioner is having the qualification of S.S.L.C, B.Sc (Botony) and B.Ed. It is submitted by the petitioner that by Ext.P4, he filed a representation before the Manager seeking appointment as U.P.S.A. But that was not considered and therefore, he filed Ext.P5 before the District Educational Officer. The claim of the petitioner is based on Notes 1 and 2 of Rule 1 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R and also Ext.P6 Rules relating to Anglo Indian Schools. According to the petitioner, the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 have not been approved by the District Educational Officer so far. Therefore, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner raised as per Ext.P5, while taking a decision regarding the grant of approval of appointment of respondents 6 and 7, if W.P.(C). No.23264/2009 -:2:- the approval has not been granted so far. The result of the decision will be communicated to the petitioner by the District Educational Officer. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms