IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14698 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M.RAJESH, L.G. HINDI TEACHER CA HIGH SCHOOL, AYYAKKADU, PALAKKADU REISIDING AT AKAMPADAM, MUNDAPPALLOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. K.S. SUMESH, PEON, CA HIGH SCHOOL AYYAKKADU, PALAKKADU REISIDING AT KOTTAIKKATTILE HOUSE, ELANAD P.O., THRISSUR 3. SAJEESH BABU, FT MENIAL, CA HIGH SCHOOL AYYAKKADU, PALAKKADU REISIDING AT MANOLADI HOUSE, PANTHAPARAMBU, MUDAPPALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. WP(C).No. 14698 of 2008(Y) 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, CA HIGH SCHOOL, AYYAKKADU, PALAKKADU. 6. THE MANAGER, CA HIGH SCHOOL, AYYAKKADU, PALAKKADU. 7. SMT. K.SOBHA, HSA HINDI TEMPORARY, CA HIGH SCHOOL, AYYAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 14698 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 letter dated 4.4.2008 was issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad to the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, stating that the appointment of the petitioners was not made as per law. The fourth respondent, the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, as per Ext.P5 dated 5.5.2008, objected to the disbursement of salary to the petitioners. Exts.P4 and P5 were challenged by the petitioners in Ext.P9 Revision before the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P8 is pending disposal. 2. The prayers made in the Writ Petition are to quash Exts.P4 and P5 and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P9 Revision within a reasonable time. The prayer to quash Exts.P4 and P5 cannot be entertained as the petitioners have already filed a statutory Revision before the second respondent and the same is pending consideration by the second respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners can only pray for an early disposal of Ext.P9 Revision. W.P.(C) NO.14698 OF 2008 :: 2 :: In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P9 Revision at the earliest and, at any rate, within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to make appropriate interim application before the second respondent for appropriate reliefs. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/