IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5067 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PREMA JOHN H.S.A (MATHS) (SENIOR GRADE) B.H. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. MR.K.SASIKUMAR MR.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION D.P.I.OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION D.D.OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER D.E.O. OFFICE, MAVELIKARA. 5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER C.M.S. SCHOOLS, DIOCESAN OFFICE BISHOP GILL MEMORIAL BUILDING, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 6. SUSAN .A.NINAN H.S.A (MATHEMATICS) BISHOP HODGES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKARA P.O. 7. THE HEADMISTRESS BISHOP HODGES HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PUTHIYAKAVU MAVELIKARA P.O. WP(C).No. 5067 of 2008(C) 8. THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION BOARD, CMS SCHOOLS BISHOP GILL MEMORIAL BUILDING, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD R6 BY ADV. MR.C.T.RAVIKUMAR MR.K.S.SAIRA MR.A.ANILKUMAR R5 BY ADV. MR.SATHISH NINAN MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ================== W.P.(C) No.5067 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. K.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. T.T.Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner is presently working as H.S.A. (Mathematics) in Bishop Hodges Higher Secondary School, Mavelikkara. This Writ Petition was filed challenging the seniority of the sixth respondent over the petitioner. It is now conceded at the Bar that the sixth respondent has since been appointed as Headmaster and posted in another school under the same educational agency. The petitioner has not challenged the said appointment. Even otherwise as an institution entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the educational agency is free to appoint a person of their choice as the Headmaster. Since the sixth respondent has been appointed as Headmaster, the question raised in this Writ Petition has become academic and has lost its relevance. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no orders are called for on this Writ Petition. It is accordingly closed as infructuous. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 17/3