IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2007 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 18493 of 2007(B) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ RAGHI VARGHESE,ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE, VELAN'S LANE,P.O.,KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR-680027. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. 4. MANAGER,K.A.U.P. SCHOOL, THIRUVATHRA, CHAVAKKAD. 5. SHRI.K.K.SREEKUMAR,UPSA,K.A.U.P. SCHOOL THIRUVATHRA, CHAVAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18493 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims that she was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in the school under the management of respondent no.4 in a newly created post with effect from July 30, 2003. The appointment was refused to be approved on the ground that appointment of a Rule 51(A) claimant had been rejected. It is pointed out by the petitioner that respondent no.5 who was the Rule 51(A) claimant is none other than son of respondent no.4, the Manager. 2. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with the above contentions in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. He submits that petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 revision petition before respondent no.1 against the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting approval. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the direction issued by the revisional authority, remarks have already been forwarded by respondent no.2. W.P.(C)No.18493 OF 2007 :: 2 :: The limited prayer is to issue an appropriate direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on Exts.P2 and P3 expeditiously. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P3 strictly on their merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention, respondent no.1 shall ensure that the petitioner, manager and respondent no.5 are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE jes