IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20652 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJITHA MOL.R., AGED 26, D/O. RAMAN.K. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, V.M.L.P.SCHOOL-PALAKKAPOTTA, VIA KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLENGODE. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE MANAGER, V.M.L.P. SCHOOL- PALAKKAPOTTA, VIA KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 20652 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ........................... The petitioner was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant on daily wage basis by the 4th respondent as per Exhibit P2. The said appointment was against a maternity leave availed by another teacher from 1.10.2009 to 29.03.2010. The appointment of the petitioner was declined to be approved in the light of Exhibit P3 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice to the Manager of the school for his non-co-operation. What exactly was the non-co-operation is not discernible from Ext.P3. Against Exhibit P3, the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P5 appeal. Exhibit P5 was returned to the petitioner as per Exhibit P6. As per Exhibit P6 the manager was directed to resubmit the same after obtaining the Government Order in accordance with direction of this 2 WP (C) No. 20652 of 2010 Court in WP(C) No.31385/10 dated 24.10.2008. Exhibit P4 is the judgment in the said writ petition. In fact, in compliance with the directions in Exhibit P4 judgment the first respondent has already passed Exhibit P7 order. As per Exhibit P7 order the action on the part of the Assistant Educational Officer in initiating Revenue Recovery proceedings against the Manager was found correct. Against Exhibit P7 order the Manager has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 19159/10 and this Court has stayed Exhibit P7 order as per interim order on 21.06.2010. Be that as it may, the question is whether on that ground can the 2nd respondent decline to entertain Exhibit P5 appeal. Exhibit P5 is an appeal preferred under Rule 8(5) of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules. The 2nd respondent cannot disuse his power citing the reasons stated in Exhibit P6. In fact the reason stated in Exhibit P6 is non-existent in the light of Exhibit P7 and therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal filed against Exhibit P3. To enable such 3 WP (C) No. 20652 of 2010 consideration, the 4th respondent is directed to resubmit Exhibit P5 appeal to the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of Ext.P5 appeal the 2nd respondent shall consider the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against Exhibit P3, expeditiously, at any rate within 2 months from the date of its receipt. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc