IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 33309 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. J. AMBIKA, W/O. K. VIJAYAN, AGED 47 YEARS, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, KONGUMCODE, ELLUVILA 2. A.V. ABHAYA, D/O. K. VIJAYAN, AGED 19 YEARS, - DO - - DO - BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMERNT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, V.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL, VELLARADA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 4. SRI.G. RAJESH KUMAR, FULL-TIME MENIAL (NOT APPROVED), V.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL, VELLARADA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 33309 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is the wife of late Sri.K.Vijayan and the second petitioner is her daughter. Sri.Vijayan expired while in service of the 3rd respondent on 16/10/2008. Petitioners submit that though they are claiming employment for the second petitioner under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER, ignoring her superior claim, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent and approval of the 2nd respondent is sought for. It is stated that anticipating this, they have filed Exts. P4 and P5 objections before the 2nd respondent and that ignoring the same, the 2nd respondent might pass orders on the proposal for approval. It is in these circumstances writ petition has been filed in order to require the 2nd respondent to take note of Exts. P4 and P5 also at the time when the proposal for approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent is considered. 2. Since the facts stated by the petitioners are as above, I see no justification to decline the limited prayer that is sought for. In my view, petitioners are eminently justified in praying that their objections should also be considered by the 2nd respondent. WPC 33309/08 :2 : 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if orders on the proposal for approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent have not been passed so far, as and when proposal is taken up for consideration, Exts. P4 and P5 shall also be taken into account and duly adverted to, if they have been received and are pending. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp