IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2692 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27000/2008 Dated 22/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.4 ----------------------------- AYISHABI.P., D/O.P.USMAN, POTHENCHERRY HOUSE, VAZHAKKAD ROAD, AREAKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------- 1. MANAGER, SUBULUSSALAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MOORKANAD, URANGATTIRI P.O., MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R1 GP SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No.2692 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 26th November 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 4th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. She was appointed by the 1st respondent in his school as HSA (Social Studies) in a vacancy available from 20.10.2001 to 31.03.2002. The District Educational Officer declined to approve the appointment. The Manager filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The Manager left it there and it appears, he has gone for appointment of a third hand. But, the appellant pursued the matter and he filed a revision before the Government. The Government remitted the matter to the Director of Public Instruction. The Director, after hearing both sides, by Ext.P3 order, allowed the revision and directed approval of appointment of the appellant. The Manager filed Ext.P6 Revision Petition before the Government, challenging that order and also seeking stay of Ext.P3, pending disposal of Ext.P6. Alleging that the Government are sleeping over the matter and seeking appropriate WA No.2692/09 2 reliefs against Ext.P3 and also for a direction to consider and dispose of the revision petition and the stay petition, the Writ petition was filed. In the meantime, the Director started coercive steps by issuing Ext.P7 against the Manager for not implementing Ext.P3. So, Ext.P7 was also challenged in the Writ Petition. 2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the Government to consider Ext.P6 revision filed before the Government. It was also ordered that further coercive action against the 1st respondent will remain stayed till the disposal of that revision. Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the revision is not maintainable at the instance of the Manager because, the Manager has preferred an appeal against the order of the District Educational Officer, rejecting the approval of appointment of the appellant. That appeal was dismissed and against that order, only the appellant moved the authorities and obtained Ext.P3 order. The Manager can only be happy about it and he can never be said to be aggrieved, if the appellant's appointment is approved. Therefore, the revision against Ext.P3 filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A K.E.R., is not maintainable, it is submitted. WA No.2692/09 3 3. We think, this is also a matter, which should be considered by the Government. The above contention and all other contentions available to the appellant can be raised by her before the Government. We have no doubt, the Government will consider them on merits. If we deal with any of those contentions, invoking the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, then the revision itself will become practically infructuous and the revisional authority will be fettered while hearing the matter. If, ultimately, the decision of the Government goes against the appellant, she can approach this Court, raising all these contentions. So, if the learned Single Judge took the view that the statutory authority should consider the matter first, we find nothing wrong with the said decision, warranting interference with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the contentions of both sides are kept open. But the 2nd respondent Government is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Subject to this direction, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/-K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/-P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE WA No.2692/09 4 sta WA No.2692/09 5