Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.R.LINI, AGED 40 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.R.LINI, AGED 40 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 19650 of 2007(L) [2007] RD-KL 11704 (2 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19650 of 2007(L)

1. K.R.LINI, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :02/07/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.19650 OF 2007

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims that she was appointed as an HSA (Maths) with effect from August 4, 2000 in a leave vacancy of Smt. Lekha Sahadevan. She further claims that she had continued in the school applying the teacher student ratio of 1:40 with effect from July 15, 2001 and that her appointment was approved from that date till March 31, 2006 as revealed from Ext.P2 order. It is the case of the petitioner that the above ratio of 1:40 was extended further in the academic year 2006-07 as seen from Ext.P3.

2. Thereafter, petitioner was again accommodated against a "leave without allowance vacancy" of Smt. Lekha Sahadevan with effect from August 4, 2006 to August 3, 2011. But when the said order of appointment was forwarded for approval, respondent no.2 rejected the prayer made by the manager. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 revision petition against the order of refusal. The limited prayer is to issue a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on Ext.P6. W.P.(C)No.19650 OF 2007

3. Learned Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P6 has been preferred as contended by the petitioner, appropriate decision thereon will be taken without any delay.

4. In the above facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. While passing orders on Ext.P6, respondent no.1 shall keep in view Exts.P1 to P3 orders of the Government. Needless to mention that petitioner shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.