IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18532 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.T.VASUDEVAN, S/O.THRIVIKRAMAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, AGED 36 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL STUDIES), HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGODE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 325. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMSA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGODE, OTTAPPALAM EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, PALAKKAD - 679 325. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18532 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was promoted as High School Assistant (Social Studies) in High School, Peringode with effect from 1.6.2009 in anticipation of sanction of a new post in the High school section. However, the same was declined to be approved by the third respondent as per Ext.P1 order. Thereupon, the Manager of the school requested for a revisit of the said school for verification of student strength. Accordingly, a revisit was conducted and Ext.P6 is the note of the revisit. According to the petitioner, despite the availability of effective strength for sanctioning one additional post in Std IX, the third respondent sanctioned only 44 divisions during the academic year 2009-2010 and sanctioned only 8 divisions as Std IX is concerned. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the facts obtained in this case, his claim is squarely covered by Exts.P7 and P9 judgments of this court and based on the said judgments, the said school is entitled to get 9 divisions in Std IX. In case such an additional division is sanctioned in Std IX, that would result in the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, it is contended. Raising such contentions and claims in the light of Exts.P7 to P9 judgments, the W.P.(C) NO.18532/2010 2 Manager has filed Ext.P11appeal against the staff fixation order before the second respondent. Against Ext.P10 rejection of approval of appointment, the petitioner has filed Ext.P12 appeal before the second respondent. Thus, Exts.P11 and P12 appeals are now pending before the second respondent. In the circumstances, considering the facts that Ext.12 is pending before the second respondent and that the second respondent is competent to look into the issues involved in the said appeal, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P12 appeal along with Ext.P11 appeal and to pass orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before passing such an order, the petitioner as also the fourth respondent shall be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18532/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.18532 /2010 JUDGMENT 15th June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18532/2010 4