IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18658 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M. RAJESH, L.G HINDI TEACHER, C.A. HIGH SCHOOL, AYAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.S. SUMESH, PEON, C.A HIGH SCHOOL, AYAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SAJEESH BABU, FULL TIME MENIAL, C.A HIGH SCHOOL, AYAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678014. 4. THE DISTICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678014. 5. THE MANAGER, C.A HIGH SCHOOL, AYAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678683. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18658 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner while working as Peon in the fifth respondent's school, got promotion to the post of LG Hindi Teacher on 4.6.2007. The said appointment was against a retirement vacancy. Consequent to the said order of promotion, the second petitioner, who was then working as Full-time Menial, was promoted as Peon and in the resultant vacancy, the third petitioner was appointed as Full-time Menial. However, as per Ext.P2, the second respondent declined to approve the appointment of the first petitioner and that resulted in reversion of the second petitioner and termination of the third petitioner from service. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioners took up the issue in revision before the Government as per Ext.P3. Admittedly, a hearing was conducted on Ext.P3 as early as on 27.5.2009. The grievance of the petitioners is that so far no communication has been given to them regarding the outcome of the said hearing. In short, the petitioners are aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P3. WPC No.18658/2010 2 In the light of the fact that the first respondent has already conducted a hearing on Ext.P3 as early as on 27.5.2009, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in case a decision has not already been passed on Ext.P3. In case an order has already been passed, a copy of the same shall be communicated forthwith to the petitioners. C.T.RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) vps WPC No.18658/2010 3 WPC No.18658/2010 4