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. 21397 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- S. DIJI, W/O. BANI, AGED 35, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGER, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. 6. SHANI UDAYAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL FOR R6 SRI.S.VISHNU FOR R6 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN 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. 21397 OF 2008 (V) ==================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has filed Ext.P9 revision before the 1st respondent against Ext.P6 order of the 3rd respondent, approving the appointment of the 6th respondent. In this writ petition, what is sought for by the petitioner is a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 revision, as expeditiously as possible. 2. Counsel for the 6th respondent raises objection to the very maintainability of the revision as also this writ petition. According to them, approval has been granted w.e.f. 1/7/06 to 15/7/07 and as the petitioner has entered service much later, she is not entitled to challenge the approval granted. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the period covered by Ext.P6 being less than one academic year, approval could not have been granted and that if granted, that would result in her ouster from service. 4. Now that the statutory authority is seized of the revision, I do not think that this Court should labour much on the inter party disputes which are to be appreciated and decided in the revision. Therefore, as at WPC 21397/08 :2 : present, the only direction that is called for is to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P9 with notice to the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6. It is clarified that none of the contentions of both the parties have been considered by this court and it will be open to the parties to raise all their contentions before the 1st respondent while considering Ext.P9 revision as directed above. Ext.P9 revision shall be disposed of in the manner as directed above, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp