IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26775 of 2010(V)
1. M.SREEKALA, W/O.MOHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No. 26775 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is presently working as Upper
Primary School Assistant in the 5th respondent’s school. He
was appointed as UPSA with effect from 2.6.2003 and the said
appointment was approved. The petitioner is, in fact,
aggrieved by Ext.P6 proceedings of the 5th respondent-
Manager. Ext.P6 has been issued on account of reduction of
post in the category of LPSA taking into account the fact that
the person to be retrenched from the category of LPSA got
appointment under the 5th respondent prior to the
appointment of the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
being an appointee to the category of UPSA he could not be
shifted to the post of LPSA. The petitioner is now facing
retrenchment. When faced with such a situation the petitioner
has approached the second respondent by filing Ext.P9 appeal.
According to the petitioner though Ext.P8 has also been
preferred before the 4th respondent, it cannot be said to be an
efficacious one and, in fact, in the light of Ext.P7 passed by
WPC.No.26775/2010
: 2 :
the 3rd respondent, the question raised by the petitioner
cannot be looked into in its true perspective by the 4th
respondent, it is submitted. However, the grievances and
objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P9 appeal can be
looked into in their true perspective by the second
respondent. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, this
writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9
expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to
the petitioner, the 5th respondent and any other teacher who is
likely to be effected by a favourable order on Ext.P9.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma