V S SAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the manner which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to 5 respondent. G.P. takes notice for respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Full Time Menial in Deepthi High School, Thalore, in the promotion vacancy of P.J.Wilson for the period from 3.8.2005 to 30.5.2010. It is stated that the promotion of P.J.Wilson was approved by the District Educational Officer as per order dated 15.11.2005 and therefore, it is clear that there was an established vacancy to accommodate the petitioner. However, the District Educational Officer rejected the proposal to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 order dated 14.8.2006. The appeal preferred against Ext.P2 was dismissed by Deputy Director of Education as per Ext.P3 order dated 13.9.2006. Though a revision was filed before the Director of Public Instruction, that was also dismissed as per Ext.P4 dated 11.11.2009. The Manager as well as the petitioner have preferred revision petitions to the Government as per Exts.P5 and P6 respectively. It is stated that Exts.P5 and P6 are pending disposal.

(3.) Though Several reliefs are prayed for in the Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 Revisions, leaving open the contentions put forward by the petitioner.