IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14498 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, H.H.Y.S.M. U.P. SCHOOL, KUTTEETHERUVU KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KREALA, RPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 14498 of 2010 J ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Manager of H.H.Y.S.M. U.P. School, Kuttitheruvu. As per Ext.P1 dated 31-07-1995, parallel English Medium Division was sanctioned in the U.P. Section of the School. Initially, the permission was for starting English Medium Division in Standard V for the year 1995-96. While so, the petitioner applied for sanction for starting parallel English Medium Division in L.P. Section as well. As per Ext.P7, the said request of the petitioner was granted provisionally. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the petitioner has started parallel English Medium Division in L.P. Section as well. However, the said sanction granted provisionally was revoked by the 3rd respondent without notice. According to the petitioner, the said action on the part of the 3rd respondent is violative of Rule 22(b) of Chapter V of the K.E.R. Challenging the said action on the part of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has moved Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P8 is still pending before the 2nd respondent. Any further delay in the matter would result in irreparable loss, it is submitted. It is in the said WPC.14498/2010 : 2 : circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already approached the 2nd respondent filing an appeal against Ext.P7 order passed by the 3rd respondent, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge