P.G.Preethakumary vs The Director Of Public … on 20 February, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 14810 of 2001(K)



1. P.G.PREETHAKUMARY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/02/2007

 O R D E R


                               Antony Dominic, J.

                            ==============

                            O.P.No.14810 of 2001

                           ===============


               Dated this the 20th day of February,  2007.


                                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who was a High School Assistant (Natural Science)

under the fourth respondent, faced retrenchment following Ext.P4 staff

fixation order and consequent division fall. It is seen that the `appeal

filed by the Manager against Ext.P8 resulted in Ext.P11 order of the

Deputy Director of Education. Still aggrieved, the Manager pursued

the matter further by filing a revision before the first respondent –

Director of Public Instructions, evidenced by Ext.P12. One of the

reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the first respondent to

dispose of Ext.P12 within a time limit to be specified by this Court. On

instructions, Government Pleader submits that Ext.P12 revision filed by

the Manager is still pending. In view of the pendency of the statutory

revision, evidenced by Ext.P12, it is only appropriate that the first

respondent is to be directed to dispose of Ext.P12 as expeditiously as

possible.

2. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that his client is entitled to

the benefit of Exts.P5 to P7. Since, I am not examining the merits of

OP 14810/01 -: 2 :-

the rival claims, and is only directing to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P12 revision, I am not examining the entitlement of the petitioner

for the benefits of Exts.P5 to P7. The relevance or otherwise of Exts.

P5 to P7 is certainly a matter to be taken note of by the first

respondent while passing orders on Ext.P12.

3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first

respondent to pass orders on Ext.P12 revision petition filed by the

fourth respondent with notice to the fourth respondent and the

petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Antony Dominic

Judge.

ess 20/2