IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21840 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.VASANTHA MARY W/O. ALBERT ALEXANDER, AGED 50 YEARS UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT ST.PAULS HIGH SCHOOL, KOZHINJAMPARA 679 555 PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT TRIVANDRUM-1 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT -1 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD DISTRICT -1 5. THE MANAGER, ST.PAULS HIGH SCHOOL, KOZHINJAMPARA 678 555, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SMT. M.PHILO HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SOCIAL STUDIES) ST.PAULS HIGH SCHOOL, KOZHINJAMPARA 678 555 PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY G.P.SRI.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21840 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as an Upper Primary School Assistant in St. Pauls High School, Kozhinjampara. Her appointment has been approved as is obvious from Ext.P1. Subsequently, a vacancy of High School Assistant (Social Science) occurred in the school on 1.6.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that ignoring her claim under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules a fresh hand, viz. the 6th respondent, was appointed against the said vacancy. According to the petitioner, it is unsustainable in law in the light of the decision of this Court in Padmanabhan Adiyodi v. The Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, R.C.Diocese of Calicut (1977 KLT 433) and the decision of the Apex Court in Jenany v. Rajeevan (2010 (2) KLT 630 (SC)). In the said circumstances, raising objections against the appointment of the 6th respondent the petitioner has already moved the fourth respondent through Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is still pending consideration before the fourth respondent. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to WP(C).No.21840/2010 2 consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS