IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 580 of 2009(R) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- AYYAPPAN CHETTIYAR, S/O.KAINTHAN CHETTIYAR, FULL TIME MENIAL, MUSLIM H.S. FOR BOYS KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, O/O. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), O/O.DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.NIZAM, MUSLIM H.S. FOR BOYS, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.580 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner states that he was appointed as Full Time Menial on 26.10.2006 in Muslim H.S. for Boys at Kaniyapuram by the 4th respondent Manager. There was a dispute regarding Managership. As per Ext.P4 judgment dated 9th November 2006 in W.P.(C) No.28333/06, the 4th respondent was directed not to make any appointment of either to the teaching or non-teaching staff till such time the Government passes orders in the revision. It was also made clear that the approval of appointment, if any, made by the fourth respondent in the meanwhile, shall be subject to the result of the revision petition pending before the Government. As per Ext.P5 order dated 2.3.2007, the Government disposed of the revision in favour of the fourth respondent. The claim made by Seena Ummal, the petitioner in Ext.P4 writ petition, was rejected. 2. Meanwhile, the District Educational Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner. An WPC No.580/2008 2 appeal was filed by the Manager which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Education as per Ext.P2 order. A further appeal preferred by the Manager was dismissed by the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext.P3 order. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 revision before the first respondent. Ext.P6 is pending disposal. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are the following : “(i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P3 and quash it. (ii) To declare that the petitioner's appointment by Ext.P1 order is liable to be approved. (iii) to direct the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P6 revision petition in accordance with law within a stipulated time limit and (iv) grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is confining his reliefs to relief no.(iii) for the time being. For considering relief no.(iii), I do not think it necessary WPC No.580/2008 3 to issue notice to the 4th respondent. It would appear that the 4th respondent does not oppose the claim made by the petitioner. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, 4th respondent and other effected party. (ii) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent. (iii) The petitioner shall send a copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the judgment by registered post to the fourth respondent and shall produce proof of the same before the first respondent. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl