IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22300 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V.JYOTHY,W/O.S.R.KRISHNADAS, AGED 34 YEARS, HSA (ENGLISH),VALANCHERY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VALANCHERY P.O.,MALAPPURAM - 676552. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.K.JINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR 4. THE MANAGER, VHSS, VGHSS, VALANCHERY MALAPPURAM-676552. 5. SREEKANTH.R.MENON, AGED 29 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(ENGLISH) VHSS, VALANCHERY-676552. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.22300 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT In the matter of rejection of approval of appointment, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P5 revision petition. The petitioner is also having grievances against the appointment of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent had earlier approached the first respondent by filing a revision petition as is obvious from Ext.P4. In fact, the petitioner was issued with a notice of hearing in the said revision petition. However, the petitioner submits that she received the same only on 17.7.2010, the date actually fixed for hearing the said revision petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, in fact, the fifth respondent and others concerned were heard on that day itself. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner had received the notice only on 17.7.2010, she will be afforded with another opportunity of being heard, it is submitted. This is recorded. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity to raise his contentions against the revision petition filed by the fifth respondent and also to consider and pass W.P.(C) NO.22300/2010 2 orders on Ext.P5 revision petition filed by the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.22300/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010