DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR Vs. A.V.SATHYABHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents in W.P. C)No.3122/10 are the appellants. Respondents 1 to 6 filed the writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P1, P7 and P11 and to require the appellants not to revert respondents 1 to 3 from the cadre of HSA and also not to retrench respondents 4 to 6 from the post of UPSAs to accommodate respondents 1 to 3. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P11 to the extent it held that respondents 1 to 3 were not entitled to the benefit of protection as provided in Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders and also issued consequential directions as sought for. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the official respondents have come up in appeal.

(2.) We heard the Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.

(3.) It is now brought to our notice that during the pendency of the litigation, respondents 4 and 6 have left service on getting other employment.