IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 33214 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SINDU. B.S ASSISTANT TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K. MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. THE MANGER, AUP SCHOOL, PERAMBARA. 5. SMT. K.L. SHIJILA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SAJU. K.M, ASSISTANT TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 33214 OF 2008 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that by Ext. P1 order dated 1.6.2007 she was appointed as UPSA in the school of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. By Ext. P2 approval was declined on the ground that the appointment was made ignoring a 51B claimant. 2. Thereupon, against Ext. P2, the Manager filed Ext. P4 appeal to the 3rd respondent and the appeal was ultimately rejected by Ext. P5 order. Aggrieved by Ext. P5 petitioner filed Ext. P6 appeal before the 1st respondent and that is pending. In the meantime, the 4th respondent made certain other appointments, which were directed to be approved by Ext. P7 order. Petitioner submits that Ext. P7 was passed without notice or hearing her and that aggrieved by Exts. P5 and P7 she has filed Ext. P6 revision before the 1st respondent which is pending. 3. In this writ petition, what is sought for by the petitioner is a W.P.(C) No. 33214 OF 2008 -2- direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P6 revision as expeditiously as possible. Having regard to the fact that Ext. P6, a statutory revision filed by the petitioner is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, I direct that the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, it is directed that further proceedings for approval of the appointment of the 6th respondent shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 6 weeks from today. The revision shall be decided with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall immediately produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-