IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34216 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAMMAD.V.P., FULLTIME ARABIC TEACHER, GOVERNMENT LPS, ORAVIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT LPS, ORAVIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34216 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Arabic teacher, who was working in Mangad East LP School in Kannur District. By Ext.P1, the petitioner was deployed as a protected teacher in Oravil Government LP School, Calicut District. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred back to the parent school by Ext.P3 on the ground that the post which he held has become a part time one. 2. Against Ext.P3 order, the petitioner represented to the 3rd respondent requesting that he may be retained in one of the schools in Calicut District. That request was considered by the 3rd respondent and finally by Ext.P7 his claim was rejected. In this writ petition, the petitioner complains that he has filed Ext.P10 appeal against Ext.P7 and that the same is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. 3. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that several factual aspects have been dealt with for rejecting the claim. Added to this, is the contention of the petitioner that similarly situated persons are still retained in Calicut District. In my view, these are contentions which W.P.(C) No. 34216/2008 -2- can be more appropriately dealt with by the 2nd respondent, before whom Ext.P10 is pending. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg