IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16895 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMITHA T.V., D/O.T.V.NANU, H.S.A., NATURAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, P.V.S.HIGH SCHOOL, ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEXE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER, P.V.S.HIGH SCHOOL, ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.16895 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Natural Science) as per Ext.P1 order dated 2.6.2008 in P.V.S.High School, Eranhikkal, Kozhikode. However, the said order of appointment was declined to be approved by the third respondent as per Ext.P3 dated 15.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the manager of the said school filed an appeal before the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent rejected the said appeal as per Ext.P5 order dated 21.2.2009. Both the manager and the petitioner filed revision petitions before the second respondent against Ext.P5 order. The said revision petitions viz., Exts. P6 and P7 were rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P8 order dated 6.4.2010. Ext.P9 revision petition was filed by the fifth respondent -manager against Ext.P8 order. Ext.P9 is still pending before the first respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed Ext.P12 revision petition dated 2.6.2010 before the first respondent. The petitioner is W.P.(C) NO.16895/2010 2 challenging Ext.P8 in Ext.P12 revision petition. As noticed herein before, challenging Ext.P8 order, the fifth respondent has already filed Ext.P9 and the same is still pending. In the said circumstances, this Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P12 along with Ext.P9 revision petition and pass orders thereon expeditiously after affording an opportunity of being heard to the fifth respondent as also the petitioner. At any rate, this shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.16895/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.16895 /2010 JUDGMENT 9th June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.16895/2010 4