IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33826 of 2008(B)
1. HABNA JOSE, W/O. DR. P. ARUN RAPHEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CMS CORPORATE
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 33826 OF 2008 (B)
====================
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that seeking approval of her service as HSST for
the period from 30/7/05 to 30/6/06, Ext.P2 proposal has been made by
the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent. It is stated that orders has not
been passed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent has
submitted Ext.P3 reminder as well. It is stated that Ext.P3 also did not
evoke any response and therefore the petitioner herself has made Exts. P4
and P7 representations to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Despite these
representations, as response is not forthcoming, the writ petition has been
filed for appropriate reliefs.
2. As already noticed, Ext.P2 is the proposal made to the 1st
respondent and the complaint is that order has not been passed. If Ext.P2
and the representations referred to above have been received by the 1st
respondent, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same. Learned
Government Pleader submits that it is presently the 2nd respondent, who is
the competent authority. If that be so, it will be open to the 1st
respondent to transmit the proposal to the 2nd respondent, for his
consideration.
WPC 33826/08
:2 :
3. I direct that the 1st respondent shall take decision on Ext.P2,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
4. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of
this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp