IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2332 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MURALI M., LAB ASSISTANT (SUPER NUMERARY) SRKGVMHSS, PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 551. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SRI.P.G.SURESH, SMT.K.VIDYA, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SRKGVMHSS, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 551. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, SRKGVMHSS, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 551. 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE RDD, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. RAMACHANDRAN, HSST (MALAYALAM), SRKGVMHSS, PURANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 551. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2332 Of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Lab Assistant(Supernumerary) in the SRKGVMHSS, Puranattukara, Thrissur District. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh selection test for the post of HSST(Malayalam) in the school by providing the petitioner a chance to appear for the interview in selection process to the said post as per the existing rules. A declaration is also sought with regard to the alleged illegality in the appointment of the 4th respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been working as Lab Assistant in the School from 1.9.1999. The supernumerary post was approved from 28.3.2003. He has got the required qualification for appointment as HSST(Malayalam) also. The petitioner submitted an application before the Manager on 13.5.2010 and 29.5.2010, but was not invited for the interview. W.P.(C)No.2332/11 -2- 4. The complaint mainly, therefore, is that the 4th respondent was appointed without giving a chance to the petitioner to participate in the interview which is in violation of the relevant statutory rules. 5. The petitioner has already approached the Regional Deputy Director, namely the 3rd respondent, objecting the proposal for approval of appointment of the 4th respondent. This Court is not expressing anything on the merits of the claim. 6. In that view of the matter, objections of the petitioner with regard to approval of appointment will be considered by the 3rd respondent in accordance with the rules, before passing orders regarding approval of the appointment. The petitioner, the Manager and the 4th respondent will be issued notices before taking any decision in the matter and the said parties will be heard also. The Writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn