IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10921 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.J.ACCAMMA,W/O.FR.TITUS JOHN, H.S.A. MALAYALAM, ST.GEORGE V.H.S.S.CHOWALLOOR, AYOOR, KOLLAM,RESIDING AT AMBALOOR HOUSE, AMBALAKKARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THEVALLY,KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGER, M.M.C.CORPORATE MANGEMENT SCHOOL, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 6. SMT.JULIE ALEXANDER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, ST.GREGORIOUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.10921 of 2009 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Smt. Preetha P.S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A.J. Varghese, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear respondents 5 and 6. 2. The fifth respondent Manager appointed the petitioner as H.S.A. (Malayalam) with effect from 27.6.2005. The fifth respondent had also similarly appointed the sixth respondent as H.S.A. (Malayalam) with effect from 15.7.2004 onwards. For the reason that the appointment of the sixth respondent was not approved, the District Educational Officer, Kollam declined to approve the petitioner's appointment as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.3.2006. The Manager challenged the said order before the District Educational Officer, Kollam, who by Ext.P2 order dated 20.2.2004 dismissed the appeal. The Manager thereupon moved the Director of Public Instruction in revision. By Ext.P3 order dated 25.6.2007 the revision petition was rejected. The reason stated for not approving the petitioner's appoint is that the appointment of the sixth respondent with effect from 15.7.2004 has not been approved. 3. The pleadings disclose that the appointment of the sixth WP(C) 10921/09 -: 2 :- respondent was also not approved by the District Educational Officer and the order passed by him was upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities. The petitioner submits that the Manager has aggrieved by Ext. P3 filed Ext.P4 revision petition before the Government seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment and Ext.P5 revision petition before the Government seeking approval of the sixth respondent's appointment. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to approve her appointment and also seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 revision petitions and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 4. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner's appointment was not approved for the reason that the appointment of the sixth respondent made in earlier point of time has not been approved. The fifth respondent Manager has moved the Government in Exts.P4 and P5 revision petitions seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner and the sixth respondent respectively. The fifth respondent was appointed on 15.7.2004 and the petitioner was appointed on 27.6.2005. More than three years have passed thereafter. I am therefore of the opinion that the revision petitions filed by the Manager require to be disposed of expeditiously. In these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Secretary to Government, General Education Department to consider Exts.P4 and P5 WP(C) 10921/09 -: 3 :- revision Petitions and pass orders thereon after notice to and affording respondents 5 and 6 a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this Writ Petition along with a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess