IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7000 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FR.JAMES CHIELLAMKOTT, CORPORATE MANAGE, CORPORATE EDUCATIONL AGENCY, ARCHDIOCESE OF TAHLASSERY, SANDESH BHAVAN, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. THE D.E.O.,KANNUR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 7000 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the manager of various schools run by corporate educational agency. In respect of three schools under the educational agency, the DEO, Kannur permitted continuation of the post of drawing teacher for the academic year 2008-2009. By Exts.P1, P3 and P6 orders, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Director reviewed the same. Aggrieved by Exts.P1, P3 and P6 orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P2, P4 and P7 appeals before the 1st respondent in January, 2009. Although those appeals were heard and the petitioner had produced the seniority list of teachers as directed by the 1st respondent twice, those appeals have not been disposed of yet. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed Ext. P14 revision against non- approval of appointment of one of the teachers made in accordance with the original staff fixation order. According to the petitioner, that revision could not have been disposed of before disposing of Exts.P2, P4 and P7, since these appeals are closely interconnected in the sense that if the appeals against the review of staff fixation are allowed automatically the appointments made pursuant to the staff fixation also have to be approved. But, by Ext. P15, Ext. P14 has been dismissed without disposing of the appeals against the staff fixation orders. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to pass orders on Exhibits P2, P4 and P7 appeals at the earliest; b) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading up to the issuance of Exts.P5, P12, P13 and P15 and quash the same; W.P.C. No. 7000/2010 -: 2 :- c) issue a direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext. P14 revision along with Ext. P7 appeal in the interest of justice.” 2. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the 1st respondent could not do anything in the matter since the manager did not produce the approved seniority list. I am of opinion that whatever be the reason, when the staff fixation order itself is the subject matter of appeals before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent could not have passed orders on the appeal against non-approval of appointment made pursuant to staff fixation order. In the above circumstances, Ext. P15 order is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to restore Ext. P14 revision petition to file and to hear and dispose of the same along with Exts.P2, P4 and P7 appeals as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner has got a case that before passing Ext. P15, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard, a fresh hearing of all the appeals and Ext. P14 revision should be conducted before passing fresh orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.