IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20351 of 2008(W) PETITIONER : LUCY KURIAN, AGED 49, W/O.T.A.JOSE, NOW WORKING AS HSA, ST.MARTY'S HIGH SCHOOL, THEKKEMALA KANJIRAPPILLY BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS RESPONDENTS : 1. STATE OF KERALA, RFPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM 4. CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, DIOCESE OF KANJIRAPPALY, KANJIRAPPILLY. 5. JOSEPH MATHEW, HSST HISTORY, ST.DOMINICS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANJIRAPPALLY R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 20351 OF 2008 W -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as High School Assistant in St.Mary's High School, Thekkemala, Kanjirappilly under the management of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, she is fully qualified to be appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (History). Applications were invited by the fourth respondent for appointment to the post of HSST (History). Petitioner appeared for the interview held on 10.3.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of appointing the petitioner, the fifth respondent was appointed under the by transfer quota. Pointing out her grievances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the Regional Deputy Director (third respondent). Ext.P4 is pending disposal. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) declare that the appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST History overlooking the seniority of the petitioner is illegal and opposed to the statutory scheme and rules contained in Rule 4(2) and (3) of Chapter 32 of KER and therefore liable to be quashed. ii) grant such other appropriate writ order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner confines her relief to a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 W.P.(C) NO.20351 OF 2008 :: 2 :: representation submitted before the third respondent. This limited submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: a) The Regional Deputy Director (third respondent) shall dispose of Ext.P4 representation dated 15.6.2008, submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months. b) Petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the third respondent. c) Parties will be entitled to produce such other additional materials and documents before the third respondent for the effective consideration and disposal of Ext.P4 representation. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/