IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30252 of 2010(F) PETITIONER: --------------- THE MANAGER, KOORIKKUZHI A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O.KOORIKKUZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 567. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 30252 OF 2010 F ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of Koorikkuzhi A.M.U.P.School, Kaipamangalam. It is stated that one day verification of the student strength for 2009-10 was made on 14.7.2009 and thereafter, high level verification was also held. In the one day verification, according to the petitioner,the educational officer omitted to note that 68 private study students were there in the School. On the basis of the one day verification, it is stated that instead of 24 class divisions, only 18 divisions were sanctioned for 2009-10. Challenging non-grant of six posts of LPSA/UPSA, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. The appeal was rejected as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.3.2010. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 statutory appeal before the Government. Ext.P6 is pending disposal. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: W.P.(C) NO.30252 OF 2010 :: 2 :: “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P2 and P5 and quash the originals of the same by the issue to the extent they exclude 68 students towards the staff fixation order of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Department to revise the staff fixation order by reckoning those 68 students who are excluded from consideration. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P6 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit. (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the time being, it is sufficient if Ext.P6 is directed to be disposed of by the first respondent. W.P.(C) NO.30252 OF 2010 :: 3 :: Since Ext.P6 appeal is pending before the Government, I do not think that it is proper to consider the contentions of the petitioner on the merits. The Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The first respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party. b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and a certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/