IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 28886 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SUGUNASEKHARAN, FULL TIME MENIAL (PROMOTED AS LAB ASSISTANT), KKM HSS VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. D.E.O., PALAKKAD. 4. MANAGER, KKM HSS, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. 5. C.V.GOKULDAS, LAB ASSISTANT (PROMOTED AS CLERK), KKM HSS, VANDITHAVALAM, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B.REMANY FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28886 of 2006 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:- “i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled for approval as F.T.M. at least w.e.f. 1.6.2001 on which date the said vacancy has become regular due to the approval of the 5th respondent as Clerk. in whose resultant vacancy petitioner was appointed as F.T.M. w.e.f. 3.6.1999. iii) direct the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as F.T.M. w.e.f. 1.6.2001 ie. in the resultant vacancy of the 5th respondent who was appointed as clerk, subject to the right of the petitioner to agitate his claim for approval as F.T.M. w.e.f. 3.6.1999 his original date of appointment. in WP (C) 12202/2006.” WP(C) No.28886/2006 2 2. After filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 revision dated 20.5.2008 before the Government challenging Ext.P4 order. The limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the Government may be directed to dispose of Ext.P5 revision. In Ext.P4 order dated 3.10.2006 issued by the third respondent, the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, it is stated that the proposal of appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial was not received in the office of the third respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order dated 3.10.2006 relates to the merits also. I am not expressing any opinion on that question. According to the Government Pleader, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P4 order in Ext.P5 revision. This is a matter to be looked into by the Government while considering Ext.P5 revision. 3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 revision dated 20.5.2008 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager of the school. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks