DANTIS K. MURINGATHERI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

(2.) The contention in this writ petition is with regard to Ext.P6, which is a revision petition purportedly filed by the petitioner against the appointment of the 4 th respondent with effect from 01.06.2005. It is submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as UPSA by Exts.P1 and P3 appointment orders against leave vacancies, but the appointments were not approved. It is stated that since approval was not granted to the appointments of the petitioner, he was denied the preferential claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV(A), Kerala Education Rules.

(3.) It is further stated that a vacancy of UPSA arose in the school on 01.06.2005 to which the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent, who did not have any preferential claim or earlier service under the management. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed only thereafter, on 18.07.2006. It is submitted that when the petitioner had been retrenched when there was a fall in students strength, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 statutory revision before the Government which was not considered. It is submitted that the writ petition was filed as early as on 11.04.2011 and had been admitted on the next day. However, the matter did not come up thereafter since the writ petition was wrongly shown to be defective and that it was only after filing of the I.A. by the petitioner seeking a disposal of the revision petition that a counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 4 th respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that since Ext.P6 is a statutory revision petition, the same is liable to be considered by the 1 st respondent in accordance with law with notice to all concerned.