IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16311 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LALLY V VARGHESE, W/O.K.A.JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, KAVUMUKKATHU VHOODANAM P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, SOCIETY OF THE ORDER OF SACRED TRANSFIGURATION MOUND TABOR, PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE HEAD MASTER, CATHOLICATE HIGH SCHOOL, POTHUKALLU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM. 5. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R3 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16311 of 2010 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Full Time Menial in Catholicate High School, Pothukallu as per Ext.P1 order. The said appointment was not approved by the 3rd respondent. Challenging the order of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent Manager approached the 4th respondent. As per Ext.P3, the 4th respondent refused to give approval to the appointment and virtually confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent. Against the order in Ext.P3, the 1st respondent has again filed a revision petition before the 5th respondent. It is submitted that no order has been passed thereon. Aggrieved by the order in Ext.P3, the petitioner also has filed Ext.P7 revision petition before the 5th respondent. The petitioner has raised all contentions to support his claim for approval of appointment made as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has also pointed out the fact that in the case of similarly situated persons, the 5th respondent has approved their appointments. Ext.P5 is one of such orders. In fact, all such contentions are WPC.16311/2010 : 2 : raised in Ext.P7. Since Ext.P4 revision petition filed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner are pending before the 5th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 5th respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition along with Ext.P4 revision petition and pass orders thereon, 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 as also the 1st respondent. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge