MUHAMMED ABDUL NISAR Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were appointed as High School Assistants in different subjects under the 5th respondent. Their appointments were declined to be approved on the ground that the vacancies against which they were appointed should have been filled by appointing protected hands. The contention of the petitioners is that there was no list in respect of the categories to which they belong in Wandoor Educational District. In the said circumstances it is submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Moosakutty V DEO, Wandoor reported in 2009(3) KLT 863 the appointments of all the petitioners are liable to be approved. Aggrieved by the non -approval of their appointments the petitioners moved the Government throughExt.P56 representation. The short prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon taking into account the decision by this Court in Moosakutty's case (supra).

(2.) IN view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition it is unnecessary to issue notice to the 5th respondent in this proceedings. I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, in the circumstances, with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P56 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that while passing orders thereon the decision of this Court in Moosakutty's case (supra) shall also be taken in to account. Orders shall be passed thereon with notice to the 5th respondent, as well.