IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19962 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANU MATHEW, H.S.A.(ENGLISH), HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.19962 of 2009-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed by the 4th respondent as H.S.A. (English) by order dated 2.6.2008. The vacancy arose due to the retirement of one Smt. B. Sasikumari Pillai, H.S.A. on 31.3.2008. By Ext.P2, approval was rejected by the third respondent on various grounds and the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent as per Ext.P3. The petitioner is challenging the grounds on which the approval was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presumably, Ext.P4 Government Order dated 10.6.2008 may be a reason for rejection of the approval. It is submitted that in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 604), presently no objection can be taken based on the said Govt. Order. 3. The petitioner is also relying upon the a judgment of this court in Rakhee v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 766) and a decision of the Apex Court in Deepa Augustine v. Geetha Alen (2008 (2) KLT 771 SC) which are produced as Exts.P5 and P6. 4. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take a wpc 19962/2009 2 decision on Ext.P3 after hearing the petitioner and the Manager, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the appeal, the principles stated by this court in Unni Narayanan's case (2009 (2) KLT 604) and Rakhee's case (2007 (1) KLT 766) and the decision of the Apex Court in Deepa Augustine's case (2008 (2) KLT 771 SC) also will be taken into account. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/