IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30491 of 2010(J)
1. V.S.SAJI,S/O.V.D.SUNNY,AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,DEVAMATHA
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30491 OF 2010
------------------------------
th
Dated this the 5 day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
In the manner which I propose to dispose of the
Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to
th
issue notice to 5 respondent. G.P. takes notice
for respondents 1 to 4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was
appointed as Full Time Menial in Deepthi High
School, Thalore, in the promotion vacancy of
P.J.Wilson for the period from 3.8.2005 to
30.5.2010. It is stated that the promotion of
P.J.Wilson was approved by the District Educational
Officer as per order dated 15.11.2005 and
therefore, it is clear that there was an
established vacancy to accommodate the petitioner.
However, the District Educational Officer rejected
the proposal to approve the appointment of the
petitioner, as per Ext.P2 order dated 14.8.2006.
The appeal preferred against Ext.P2 was dismissed
by Deputy Director of Education as per Ext.P3 order
W.P.(C).No.30491 OF 2010 2
dated 13.9.2006. Though a revision was filed
before the Director of Public Instruction, that was
also dismissed as per Ext.P4 dated 11.11.2009. The
Manager as well as the petitioner have preferred
revision petitions to the Government as per Exts.P5
and P6 respectively. It is stated that Exts.P5 and
P6 are pending disposal.
3. Though Several reliefs are prayed for in the
Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioner
submitted that for the time being, the petitioner
would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the
first respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5
and P6 Revisions, leaving open the contentions put
forward by the petitioner.
4. Since Exts.P5 and P6 are pending disposal,
it is not necessary to consider the merits of the
contentions put forward by the petitioner. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the first
respondent is directed to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6
revisions filed by the Manager and the petitioner,
as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
W.P.(C).No.30491 OF 2010 3
a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
the fifth respondent-Manager. The petitioner shall
produce a certified copy of the judgment and copy
of the Writ Petition before the first respondent.
The petitioner shall also send a copy of the Writ
th
Petition and copy of the judgment to the 5
respondent by registered post and he shall produce
proof of the same before the first respondent.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms