IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 564 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6530/2007 Dated 06/07/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. ALPHONSA ENGRATIDA.P.J., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOOKKANNOOR. 2. JOSE.P.P., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOOKKANNOOR. 3. ANNAMMA.K.M, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS), PERUMBAVOOR. 4. ISHA.M.R., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (BOYS), ALUVA. 5. MARTHA THARIATH, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. UMAYAMMA.T.V, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NORTH PARAVUR. 7. RAMAKRISHNAN.K.P., RETIRED PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. No. 564 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman,J. The contention raised in the writ appeal is that the writ petitioners are not entitled for the revised scale of pay attached to the post of Principal prior to 2006. According to the learned Government Pleader the post itself was available only in 2006. Going by the records it does not appear that such a contention was raised in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge after giving an opportunity to the respondents to meet such contention. Therefore, the appropriate course open to the appellants is to seek for a review and not to file a writ appeal since this is not a question raised or considered by the learned Single Judge. With liberty to the appellants to file review, this writ appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, (JUDGE ) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps Crl.M.C.No. 2 Crl.M.C.No. 3