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. 23480 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): SANTHOSH T.ALEXANDER, S/O.T.M.ALEXANDER, AGED 45 YEARS,HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(HINDI),ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, ATTACHAKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 692. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT TIRUVALLA-680 101. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 692. 5. THE MANAGER, ST.GEORGE V.H.S.SCHOOL, ATTACHAKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 692. 6. SRI.P.K.THYAGARAJAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT(MALAYALAM) ST.GEORGE'S HIGH SCHOOL, ATTACHAKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 692. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1 TO R4 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.23480 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as High School Assistant St.George's High School, Attachackal in Pathanamthitta District. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order whereby the third respondent issued the direction to follow the seniority list that existed in the year 1992 in respect of the school for deciding the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, ignoring the decision of this Court in Abraham A.G and others v. State of Kerala & others (2009 (3) KLT 659). No doubt, in the 1992 seniority list, the sixth respondent was rightly shown as senior to the petitioner. Thereafter, the sixth respondent was deployed to Government School as a protected teacher on 23.10.1997. He was re-deployed to the parent school only on 16.7.1999. The petitioner contends that it was without taking into account the said crucial aspect and whether the said period could be reckoned for the purpose of deciding their inter se seniority in the light of the decision in 2009 (3) KLT 659 (supra), Ext.P2 order was issued. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the second respondent. But the same was rejected as per W.P.(C) NO.23480/2010 2 Ext.P7 confirming Ext.P2 order. Raising contentions based on the decision of this court in 2009 (3) KLT 659 (supra), the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P8 revision petition. Along with Ext.P8 revision petition, the petitioner has also filed Ext.P8 (a) stay petition. It is apprehending that any further delay in the matter of disposal of Exts.P8 and P8(a) would detrimentally affect him that this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. The post of Headmaster in the said school has become vacant on 1.4.2010. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is well founded. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that any delay in the matter of disposal of Exts.P8 and P8(a) would definitely be detrimental to the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 revision petition submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. However, the first respondent shall take up Ext.P8(a) stay petition filed in Ext.P8 revision petition within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and pass appropriate orders thereon. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.23480/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.23480/2010 4