High Court Kerala High Court

Regimol Philip vs State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
Regimol Philip vs State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33915 of 2007(K)


1. REGIMOL PHILIP,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. JULIET MATHEW,

4. THE MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :16/11/2007

 O R D E R
                         S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                     =======================
                       W.P.(C) No. 33915 of 2007(K)
                     =======================

                Dated this the 16th day of November, 2007


                              JUDGMENT

Claiming appointment in a vacancy of LPSA, which arose in

the school managed by the 4th respondent, on 1.6.07, the

petitioner filed Ext. P5 application. However, overlooking the

claim of the petitioner the 4th respondent appointed the 3rd

respondent by Ext.P6 order. According to the petitioner the

petitioner has another claim also for appointment in an earlier

vacancy which claim is pending in appeal before the Supreme

Court of India in SLP(Civil) No.2913/04, as against one

Smt.Tessi Joseph who was also appointed overlooking the

petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed Exts. P7 to P9 before the

2nd respondent. The petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of

Exts. P7 to P9.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, there would be a direction to

W.P.(C) No. 33915/2007 -2-

the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Exts. P7 to P9 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4. I make it

clear that I have not considered the entitlement of the petitioner

for reliefs prayed for in Exts. P7 to P9 on merits and it would be

open to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate

orders on the same in accordance with law on merits.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE

jp