IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16641 of 2010(E)
1. JUDIMOL S
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
4. THE MANAGER
5. SMT. SUBHA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
6. SMT. P.K.SAJEENA
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
----------------------------
WP(C) NO. 16641 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as High School
Assistant (Natural Science) with effect from 01.06.2007
to 31.03.2008 in A.G.R.M.H.S. School, Vallikunnam.
Pendency of the management dispute results in non-
approval of the said appointment. However, in revision
Government directed the 2nd respondent to approve his
appointment. Pursuant to the same the said appointment
was approved as per Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, the 5th
respondent was appointed as UPSA from 02.06.2008 to
31.03.2009 and the petitioner raised his objection against
the said appointment in the light of the decision reported
in Geetha Vs. Geo Thomas [2009 (4) KLT 514]. But,
without considering the legal issue involved in the matter
the 3rd respondent approved the appointment of the 5th
respondent from 02.06.2008 to 31.03.2009. On
01.06.2009 a retirement vacancy arose in the school. The
2
WP(C) No. 16641/2010
4th respondent appointed the 5th respondent against the said
vacancy. Aggrieved by the said appointment the petitioner
preferred Ext.P4 objection before the 3rd respondent. Later,
the petitioner was appointed as UPSA from 01.06.2009 in
an anticipated sanction of post. However, the same was
rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P5. Against
Ext.P5 the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd
respondent. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent rejected
Ext.P4 representation as per Ext.P7 order dated
29.03.2010. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 appeal
before the 2nd respondent. Exts.P6 and P8 are still pending
before the 2nd respondent.
2. Considering the fact that Exts.P6 and P8 filed
respectively against Exts.P5 and P7 are pending before the
2nd respondent, without making any observation as to the
merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent
to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P8
3
WP(C) No. 16641/2010
expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd
respondent shall also afford an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 prior to the passing
of orders as directed. Any appointment of the 5th
respondent shall be subject to the decision on Ext.P6.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
JUDGE
jma