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. 12708 of 2008(K) PETITIONER: ------------ P.S.SANTHOSHKUMAR, U.P.S.A., S.N.H.S.S. UZHAMALAKKAL, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL. 3. LEKHA T.NAIR, H.S.A., S.N.H.S.S., UZHAMALAKKAL, ATTINGAL. 4. THE MANAGER, S.N.H.S.S., UZHAMALAKKAL, ATTINGAL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.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. 12708 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008 JUDGMENT In the manner in which the Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, I do not think that notice to respondents 3 and 4 is necessary. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is a UPSA working in S.N.H.S.S., Uzhamalakkal, Attingal. During the academic year 2005-2006, it is stated that a vacancy of High School Assistant (Social Science) arose in the High School wing of the School. The petitioner as well as the third respondent put forward claims for appointment. Even before appointing the third respondent, it is stated that the petitioner filed objection before the District Educational Officer. W.P.(C) No.35062 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner mainly for a direction to the District Educational Officer to dispose of his objection. That Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 16.12.2005, directing the District Educational Officer to hear the petitioner, third respondent herein (Lekha.T.Nair) and the Manager of the School and take a decision in accordance with law. The District Educational Officer passed Ext.P2 order dated 24.2.2006, in compliance with the directions in W.P.(C)No.35062 of 2005. The District Educational Officer W.P.(C) NO.12708 OF 2008 :: 2 :: found in Ext.P2 order that Lekha T.Nair is the rightful claimant and that the objection raised by the petitioner could not be entertained. Challenging Ext.P2 order, on 30.5.2006, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 Revision before the Government. 3. The prayers made in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) call for the records leading to Ext.P2 order and issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ order or direction quashing the same; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as HSA (SS) in the 4th respondent school, after reverting the 3rd respondent; and iii) issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The petitioner has alternate remedy to challenge Ext.P2. Therefore, relief (i) cannot be granted as alternative remedy is available. For the same reason, relief (ii) also cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an interim prayer for a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3. The interim relief reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the writ petition and accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3, pending disposal of the writ petition.” W.P.(C) NO.12708 OF 2008 :: 3 :: Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to dispose of Ext.P3. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P2 is revisable by the Director of Public Instructions and, therefore, the Government has no power to exercise the revisional power. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file a Revision before the Director of Public Instructions within a period of two weeks from today. This submission is not opposed by the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner is permitted to challenge Ext.P2 in Revision before the Director of Public Instructions within a period of two weeks from today. If such a Revision is filed within two weeks, the Director of Public Instructions shall dispose of the same on the merits as expeditiously as possible, after hearing the petitioner, Lekha T.Nair (third respondent herein) and the Manager of the School. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/