IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 997 of 2011(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, S.M.H.S.S.PATHARAM, SOORANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM. 2. NEETHU.S., H S A (MALAYALAM) S.M.H.S.S.PATHARAM, SOORANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (E) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 691 506. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM- 691 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 997 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The main prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on the revision petition filed under Rule 92 of XIV A KER. A copy of the Revision Petition is produced as Ext.P2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are the following.: 2. First petitioner is the manager of the school. Second petitioner is appointed as HSA(Malayalam) from 04.08.2008 against the retirement vacancy of Smt.Elizabeth John on the A.N. of 31.03.2008. The approval of the same was rejected by the District Educational Officer alleging the non compliance of the terms and conditions in GO(P) No.104/2008. Gen.Edn dated 10.06.2008. Manager, challenged it in an appeal which was rejected. The manager thereafter filed Revision Petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER before the first respondent. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said revision petition dated 7.8.2010. It is pointed out that the rejection of the approval is not justified. W.P.(C).No. 997 of 2011 2 Various grounds have been raised in the Writ Petition, to challenge Ext.P1 order. The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued to the first respondent Government to take a decision on Ext.P2 Revision Petition. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 revision petition, if it is received and pending, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Writ Petition along with a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. No costs. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. ln