IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 17TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 3113 of 2007(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ FOUSIA.V., D/O.MAMUKOYA.E., VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, MUNDIKKAL THAZHAM, CALICUT-8, (U.P.S.A.JDT ISLAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VELLIMADUKUNNU, KOZHIKODE). BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE D.P.I., JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 3113 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2007 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner has passed B.A. (Economics), T.T.C and B.Ed. Examination for being appointed as HSA. There is a vacancy, which is going to arise in June, 2007 is the case of the petitioner. According to the petitioner there is an order dated 19.7.2005 by which it is specified that B.Ed in the concerned subject along with degree in the concerned subject shall be the stipulated qualification for HSA. But under the Rules, the B.Ed. Degree which the petitioner has in Malayalam would suffice for promotion. Petitioner has filed Exts.P1 and P2 representations. The prayer in Ext.P1 is that she may be considered favourably for promotion to the post of H.S.A., which is entitled under the K.E.R when Smt. A.Geetha retires. The prayer is the same in Ext.P2. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Government is going to amend the Rule. Petitioner has not made the Manager a party nor has sought to consider her for promotion. It is only if the Manager WPC.3113/2007. 2 issues an order against the petitioner refusing the petitioner's claim at the appropriate stage that revision will lie under Rule 92 before the Government. 3. I would think that the writ petition may not be as such maintainable particularly having regard to the fact that the vacancy in question has not even arisen and is due to arise only in June, 2007. In such circumstances, the writ petition need not be proceeded with. It is closed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the Government Order, if it is so advised. I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner moving the Manager and seeking appropriate remedy. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb K.M.JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. OF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Dated this the day of February, 2006.