High Court Kerala High Court

G.Smija vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
G.Smija vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18778 of 2010(V)


1. G.SMIJA, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. TEH DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE MANAGER, ST.SEBASTIAN'S HIGH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAGHAVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance


 Dated :17/06/2010

 O R D E R
                           C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
                    --------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C). NO.18778 OF 2010
                    --------------------------------------------

                    Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as High School Assistant (Malayalam)

in St.Sebastian’s High School, Marutharod in Palakkad District with effect

from 7.6.2004 against a sanctioned post. However, the third respondent

declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that

being a newly opened school, the vacancy against which the petitioner was

appointed should have been filled up by a protected H.S.A (Malayalam).

The Manager took up the matter in appeal. The same was rejected.

Thereupon, the Manager took up the matter unsuccessfully in revision.

According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 would reveal that at the relevant point

of time, there was no protected teacher available for appointment in the

district. The petitioner submits that the same position continues to be there

as is obvious from Exts.P5 and P6. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P7

revision petition before the first respondent. The said revision petition

dated 3.4.2010 is still pending before the first respondent.

2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P7

revision petition has been filed belatedly and, therefore, it is not

W.P.(C) NO.18778/2010 2

maintainable. I am of the view that those are matters for the first

respondent to consider at the time of consideration of Ext.P7. Since

Ext.P7 revision petition is pending before the first respondent, I do not

think it necessary to go into such details at this stage. Therefore, without

making any observations as to the merits of the contentions raised by the

petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 expeditiously, at any

rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

spc

W.P.(C) NO.18778/2010 3

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

W.P.(C). NO.18778 /2010

JUDGMENT

17th June, 2010

W.P.(C) NO.18778/2010 4