IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17453 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMT.LEKHAMOL THOMAS W/O.SAJI JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, P.D.TEACHER, GOVERNMENT TRIBAL SCHOOL, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. RINCY P.JAMES, P.D.TEACHER, DIET LAB, U.P.SCHOOL, THODUPUZHA. 4. SHYALAJA P.S., P.D.T. TEACHER, GOVT HS KALLAR, IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON 04/06/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------- WP (C) NO. 17453 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Primary Departmental teacher. She was appointed on 05.08.1997. Her probation was declared as per Exhibit P1. While continuing so, the petitioner had acquired necessary qualification for being appointed to the post of HSA (English). The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to Exhibit P3 seniority list published by the respondent on 19.01.2010. According to the petitioner she is senior to the person who has been assigned rank No.1 in the said list and therefore, there is no reason for not including the petitioner in Exhibit P3 seniority list. 2. The petitioner has to raise the question of non inclusion of her name in the seniority list before the appropriate authority. Learned Government Pleader 2 WP (C) NO. 17453 of 2010 submitted that the second respondent is the competent authority to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has not, so far, approached the second respondent raising her grievance against Exhibit P3. 3. This writ petition is, therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the second respondent by filing appeal against Exhibit P3. In case the petitioner files such an appeal against Exhibit P3 within two weeks from today the second respondent shall consider and pass orders there on expeditiously, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also to persons whose names are included in Exhibit P3. It is made clear that, any promotion based on Exhibit P3, will be subject to the result of the said appeal. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE rkc