IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33347 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- IBRAHIM, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O. ENIKUTTY, KERATTIYIL HOUSE, KOLAMB, MANAGER, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, KOLAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, EDAPPAL. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BNY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 33347 of 2009-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the Manager of an L.P. School in Malappuram District. In a retirement vacancy which arose on 31.3.2008, the petitioner appointed one Rousna on 11.6.2008. Even though the approval of appointment was sought, that was declined for the reason that since the school is treated as an uneconomic one, only protected teachers alone can be appointed. Ext.P1 is the said order. Even though an appeal was filed, that was dismissed by Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, against the staff fixation order treating the school as uneconomic, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the third respondent which was allowed. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the first respondent by which a regular post of Arabic Teacher was sanctioned to the school from the year 2008-2009. Ext.P5 is the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order which is still pending. Now the first respondent has passed an order as per Ext.P6, rejecting approval of appointment for the same reason and Ext.P7 is the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent against Ext.P6 order. The petitioner seeks for an early disposal of the above two appeals. wpc 33347/2009 2 2. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to the 4th respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A representative of the petitioner will be heard by the respective respondents before the appeals are disposed of. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/