IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16571 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ST.FRANCIS READING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. D.SUJATHA, UNDER SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.VALSALA KUMARI, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY OOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16571 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 4th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T When the Writ Petition came up for admission, Advocate Shri Elvin Peter submitted that he represents the affected parties and that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the affected parties in this Writ Petition. Shri Elvin Peter also submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has made misleading statements in the Writ Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the affected parties will be impleaded. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order dated 19.05.2008 passed by the Government stating that some more time is required for passing orders in the revision regarding management dispute. There is also a direction in the order that till the matter is decided, no appointment shall be made in the schools. Since Ext.P4 reveals that a hearing was held on 13.05.2008, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P4 order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that relief No.2 in the Writ Petition is relevant for consideration and that the Writ Petition may be disposed of directing the Government to hear the petitioner again and to dispose of the Revision. According to the petitioner, he was not heard. Advocate Shri Elvin Peter submitted that all the parties including the petitioner were heard and at that time, learned counsel for the petitioner requested for further time to file objections. Shri Elvin Peter stated that there is no objection for any of the parties, if the petitioner is heard on a particular date W.P.(C) No. 16571 OF 2008 2 provided the petitioner should not be allowed to protract the matter 5. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to hear the petitioner as well as all the affected parties on a specific date before finally disposing of the revision. The first respondent shall fix a date and inform all the parties. It is made clear that any of the parties in the case would be entitled to move the Government for interim reliefs. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk