IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18778 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.SMIJA, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM) ST.SEBASTIAN'S HIGH SCHOOL, MARUTHAROD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. THE MANAGER, ST.SEBASTIAN'S HIGH SCHOOL, MARUTHAROD, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA-R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18778 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in St.Sebastian's High School, Marutharod in Palakkad District with effect from 7.6.2004 against a sanctioned post. However, the third respondent declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that being a newly opened school, the vacancy against which the petitioner was appointed should have been filled up by a protected H.S.A (Malayalam). The Manager took up the matter in appeal. The same was rejected. Thereupon, the Manager took up the matter unsuccessfully in revision. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 would reveal that at the relevant point of time, there was no protected teacher available for appointment in the district. The petitioner submits that the same position continues to be there as is obvious from Exts.P5 and P6. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the first respondent. The said revision petition dated 3.4.2010 is still pending before the first respondent. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P7 revision petition has been filed belatedly and, therefore, it is not W.P.(C) NO.18778/2010 2 maintainable. I am of the view that those are matters for the first respondent to consider at the time of consideration of Ext.P7. Since Ext.P7 revision petition is pending before the first respondent, I do not think it necessary to go into such details at this stage. Therefore, without making any observations as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. . (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18778/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.18778 /2010 JUDGMENT 17th June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18778/2010 4