IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36620 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- INDULEKHA.S., U.P.S.A., S.K.V.U.P.SCHOOL, EVOOR NORTH, HARIPPAD SUB DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, HARIPPAD. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TRIVANDRUM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.36620/2009-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is working as an Upper Primary School Assistant in S.K.V.U.P School, Evoor North in Harippad. 2. The petitioner was appointed as such on 11/06/1993 and the said appointment was approved. Later on, due to shortfall of post, the petitioner was retrenched from service on 14/07/1994. The petitioner claims that going by the provisions of G.O.(P).No.112/2001/G.Edn., dated 26/03/2001, she is entitled to get protection. Later on, another vacancy arose on 31/03/2001 due to retirement of one Smt.B.Kamalamma. It is pointed out that the said vacancy was filled-up by appointing another teacher. But, the first respondent rejected the approval with a further direction to appoint the petitioner as L.G Hindi Teacher in the school. It is also averred that even though the Manager filed an appeal before the educational authorities, those appeals have been dismissed. But, the writ petition filed by the Manager and another Teacher, namely, Smt.Jayasree was allowed on the ground that the petitioner being a Rule 51A claimant can only claim the vacancy of an U.P.S.A and not that of the Part-time L.G.Hindi Teacher. W.P.(C). No.36620/2009 -:2:- This was challenged by the petitioner in W.A.Nos.1726/2007 and 1794/2007 and the writ appeals were allowed, upholding the liberty of the petitioner, as per Ext.P1. 3. Later on, the petitioner was appointed as per Ext.P2. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the denial of the Full-time benefit. Even though the authorities were moved in the matter, those representations have been rejected. Finally, aggrieved by the order Ext.P4, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 revision petition. It is prayed that the revision petition may be directed to be disposed of within a time frame. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. There will be a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 revision petition after hearing the petitioner and the Manager of the School and any other affected parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this Judgment before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms