High Court Kerala High Court

Deepthi J.Prasad vs District Educational Officer on 19 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Deepthi J.Prasad vs District Educational Officer on 19 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22228 of 2007(U)


1. DEEPTHI J.PRASAD, H.S.A(MALAYALAM),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS

5. MANAGER, KODUMON HIGH SCHOOL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :19/07/2007

 O R D E R
                          A.K.BASHEER, J.
                  --------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C)No.22228 OF 2007
                  -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 19th day of July, 2007

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner is stated to be working as High School

Assistant (Malayalam) in the school under the management of

respondent no.5 with effect from June 1, 2005 in a retirement

vacancy of Sri.K.Gopalan Nair who admittedly was working in

another school on “protection”. Grievance of the petitioner is

that her appointment is not being approved on the ground

that the manager was bound to fill up the retirement vacancy

of Gopalan Nair by appointing a protected teacher.

2. I do not propose to deal with the above contention at

this stage, in view of the limited prayer made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. He submits that

petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 revision petition against

Exts.P1 to P3 orders passed by the subordinate authorities.

The limited prayer is to issue a direction to respondent no.4 to

take a decision on Ext.P8 expeditiously.

W.P.(C)No.22228 OF 2007
:: 2 ::

3. Learned Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P8

has been preferred as contended by the petitioner,

appropriate decision thereon will be taken without any delay.

4. In the above facts and circumstances, writ petition is

disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider

and pass orders on Ext.P8 strictly on its merit and in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Needless to mention that apart from the petitioner

and all others who are likely to be affected by any order that

may be passed by respondent no.4, shall be afforded sufficient

opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the

matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition

along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent

no.4 for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes