High Court Kerala High Court

Binu Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Binu Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33569 of 2007(U)


1. BINU ABRAHAM, H.S.A.(PHYSICAL SCIENCE)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE MANAGER,

6. VINEETHA.T.,THAZHETHIL PREMADAM

7. N.S.ANITHA, H.S.A.(MATHS), TTTMVHSS

8. BINDU ABRAHAM, H.S.A (MATHS)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :26/11/2008

 O R D E R
                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                          ==============
                    W.P.(C) NO. 33569 OF 2007 (U)
                    ====================

              Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

In this writ petition, petitioner challenges his reversion from the

post of HSA (Physical Science) to the post of UPSA, final order of which is

Ext.P15. Petitioner contends that during the pendency of this writ petition,

a fresh vacancy arose consequent on the retirement of an incumbent in

this academic year and that his claim is liable to be considered as against

that vacancy. According to him, he has moved the DEO by filing Ext.P19

in this behalf.

2. Counsel for the 6th respondent points out that against the staff

fixation order, 7th respondent has filed appeal and that the appeal is

pending before the DPI. It is also pointed out that this Court has already,

by judgment in WP(C) No.32077/08 dated 31/10/2008, directed

consideration and disposal of the said appeal.

3. Therefore, if as stated by the counsel for the 6th respondent,

appeal filed by the 7th respondent is pending consideration of the DPI, it is

only appropriate that the DPI considers the claim of the petitioner also.

4. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to

WPC 33569/08
:2 :

place his grievances before the DPI, who shall thereupon consider this

claim also when the appeal filed by the 7th respondent is taken up for

consideration in pursuance to the judgment in WP(C) NO.32077/08. It is

directed that the DPI shall while deciding the matter, issue notice to the

petitioner also.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp