IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22280 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.JITHESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. P.SASIDHARAN, UPSA, KOTTUR AUP SCHOOL KOTTUR.P.O., NADUVANNUR-VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673615. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673528. 4. SMT. S.RASNA, LPSA KOTTUR AUPS, KOTTUR.P.O.,NADUVANNUR-VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN-673614. 5. THE MANAGER, KOTTUR AUPS, KOTTUR.P.O., NADUVANNUR-VIA, KOZHIKODE SITRICT, PIN-673614. BY G.P.SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.22280 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 16th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in Kottur AUP School under the fifth respondent. Ext.P1 would reveal that the said appointment was approved. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant as per Ext.P2 order dated 6.6.2007. Pursuant to Ext.P3 staff fixation order the petitioner faced with the threat of retrenchment and the third respondent granted the same school protection to the petitioner in the light of G.O.(P)No.167/2008/G.Edn. dated 20.9.2008. According to the petitioner, the same was ratified by the second respondent. Subsequently, the second respondent has issued Ext.P6 order. Later, he has issued Ext.P7 order directing to recover the benefits granted to the petitioner with effect from 15.7.2008. Aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 revision petition before the first respondent and he has also filed Ext.P9 stay petition before the first respondent requesting to stay the recovery pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioner apprehends that pending decision on Ext.P8 revision petition and Ext.P9 stay petition, coercive steps for effecting recovery would be initiated. It is in WP(C).No.22280/2010 2 the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Evidently, the petitioner has taken up the issue before the first respondent by filing Ext.P8 revision petition. In the said revision petition he has also filed Ext.P9 stay petition seeking stay of recovery as ordered as per Ext.P7. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 revision petition expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, the first respondent shall take up Ext.P9 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and pass appropriate orders thereon. Till such time, no recovery pursuant to Ext.P7 order shall be effected. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS