IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH MAY 2009 / 15TH VAISAKHA 1931 W. A.No. 983 of 2009 -------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P(C).5786/2009 Dated 08/04/2009 ) APPELLANT/ 5TH RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- SRI.JAYACHANDRAN, MANAGER S.V.H.S.S. CLAPPANA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. .A.N.RAJAN BABU MR. .P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.SINDHU, WORKING AS H.S.A, S.V.H.S. CLAPPANA, RESIDING AT KOOTUMVATHUKAL VALIYAZHEEKAL, VALIYAZHEEKAL P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 5. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. P.B. SURESH KUMAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & C.K. ABDUL RAHIM, JJ. ........................................................................ W.A. No. 983 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandra Menon, J: The appellant is the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition, who is the Manager of the concerned School. The first respondent was stated as appointed by an incompetent person claimed to be the Manager of the School when there was an elected Manager by name Unnikrishnan. It is also stated that there is a positive declaration given by the concerned Munsiff's Court holding that the aforesaid Unnikrishnan was entitled to continue as the Manager of the School. In the said circumstances, the appointment of the first respondent, by the alleged Manager by name Sidharthan, was not approved. Finally, the matter was taken up before the third respondent, who passed orders granting approval to the appointment of the first respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant has already approached the Government, where the Revision is stated as pending. It is W.A. No. 983 OF 2009 2 the case of the appellant that the Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent without revealing the pendency of the Revision Petition, which led to the impugned order dated 08.04.2009. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interim order passed by the learned single Judge is beyond the prayers sought for in the Writ Petition, particularly when the learned single Judge had directed to disburse the arrears of salary and allowances, if the appointment was approved, for which there was absolutely no prayer in the Writ Petition at all. The appellant is also aggrieved of non-bringing of the actual facts, particularly as to the pendency of the Revision Petition before the Government, to the notice of the learned single Judge, and contends that but for this, the impugned order would not have been passed by the learned single Judge. 4. Considering the case projected in the appeal, it is made clear that the appellant is at liberty to move the learned single Judge by filing a petition for Review, if aggrieved in any manner and it is not at all necessary for this Court to exercise the appellate jurisdiction for redressal of the grievances of the W.A. No. 983 OF 2009 3 appellant. The Writ Appeal is disposed of reserving the rights of the appellant to file such petition for review or such other petition for modification of the impugned order . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. C.K. ABDUL RAHIM, JUDGE. lk