High Court Kerala High Court

Sugunasekharan vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sugunasekharan vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28886 of 2006(L)


1. SUGUNASEKHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,

3. D.E.O.,

4. MANAGER,

5. C.V.GOKULDAS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PAULSON THOMAS

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :09/06/2008

 O R D E R
                  K.T. SANKARAN,J.

             --------------------------------------
            W.P.(C) No.28886 of 2006 L
             --------------------------------------
       Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008.

                    J U D G M E N T

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:-

“i) issue a writ of certiorari

quashing Ext.P4

ii) declare that the petitioner is

entitled for approval as F.T.M. at least w.e.f.

1.6.2001 on which date the said vacancy has

become regular due to the approval of the 5th

respondent as Clerk. in whose resultant

vacancy petitioner was appointed as F.T.M.

w.e.f. 3.6.1999.

iii) direct the 3rd respondent to

approve the appointment of the petitioner as

F.T.M. w.e.f. 1.6.2001 ie. in the resultant

vacancy of the 5th respondent who was

appointed as clerk, subject to the right of the

petitioner to agitate his claim for approval as

F.T.M. w.e.f. 3.6.1999 his original date of

appointment. in WP (C) 12202/2006.”

WP(C) No.28886/2006

2

2. After filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has submitted

Ext.P5 revision dated 20.5.2008 before the Government challenging Ext.P4

order. The limited prayer made by the petitioner is that the Government may be

directed to dispose of Ext.P5 revision. In Ext.P4 order dated 3.10.2006 issued

by the third respondent, the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, it is stated

that the proposal of appointment of the petitioner as Full Time Menial was not

received in the office of the third respondent. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order dated 3.10.2006 relates to the merits also. I

am not expressing any opinion on that question. According to the Government

Pleader, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P4 order in Ext.P5 revision.

This is a matter to be looked into by the Government while considering Ext.P5

revision.

3. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first

respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 revision dated 20.5.2008 as expeditiously as

possible and at any rate within a period of four months from today, after affording

an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager of the school.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cks