IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 W.P(C).No. 28954 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. RT.REV.THOMAS MAR TIMOTHEOUS EPISOCPA MANAGER, MAR THOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHUNGATHARA PO., NILAMBUR, MALAPURAM, 2. DR.REENA MARY ABRAHAM, PRINCIPAL-IN- CHARGE, MAR THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHUNGA THARA PO., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 28954 OF 2008 (V) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P7 is an order passed by the 3rd respondent declining approval for the 2nd petitioner's appointment as Principal, on the ground that she was not qualified for appointment as on 1.4.2008 and that there were other qualified candidates under the same management. Petitiners submit that the 1st petitioner has already filed Ext. P8 appeal against Ext. P7 order and that the said appeal is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that in the meanwhile the salary bill submitted for the month of September, 2008 has been rejected by Ext. P10 order passed by the 3rd respondent. It is with the aforesaid grievance the writ petition has been filed. 2. As can be seen from the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, the correctness or otherwise of the rejection of the salary bill, will depend upon Ext. P8 appeal filed against Ext. P7. In view of this, I am satisfied that an W.P.(C) No. 28954 OF 2008 -2- expeditious disposal of Ext. P8 appeal is what is called for in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: 1) That within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment the 2nd respondent shall take up, consider and pass orders on Ext. P8 appeal filed by the 1st petitioner. 2) Immediately on disposal of the appeal as above, it will be open to the petitioner to move the 3rd respondent in which case the rejection of the salary bill, will be reconsidered in terms of the appellate order. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 and 3 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-