P S JASMIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as UPSA in 2003. She was promoted as HSA(Social Science) on 2.11.2005. It is stated that during 2007-2008 the post was abolished for want of students strength. As per Ext.P1 order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, on appeal by the Manager against the staff fixation order, 1:40 teacher student ratio was allowed to be applied. THE appeal filed by the Manager was allowed and the District Educational Officer was directed to rd sanction 3 division in standard VIII and th consequent 7 post of HSA under the revised ratio 1:40 for the year 2007-2008. It is stated that during 2008-2009, a retirement vacancy arose in the High School section and the Manager accommodated the petitioner in that regular vacancy, as per Ext.P2 order dated 31.5.2008. According to the th petitioner, the 5 respondent commenced regular W.P.(C).No.30927 OF 2010 2 service as HSA (Mathematics) on 4.6.1984. During the year 1997-1998 she was deployed to Government th School on protection. In 1998, the 5 respondent rejoined in the parent school. It is stated that during 2002, she was again deployed on protection and again in December, 2004 she was accommodated as LPSA in the parent school. THE learned counsel th appearing for the 5 respondent submitted that from th June, 2008, the 5 respondent is continuing as UPSA on pay protection. As per Ext.P3 order dated 16.9.2009, the District Educational Officer th approved the accommodation of the 5 respondent against the regular post of UPSA, but rejected the appointment of the petitioner as HSA in the retirement vacancy. On appeal, the Deputy Director of Education, as per Ext.P4 order dated 19.3.2010 ordered accommodation of the petitioner against retirement vacancy. Against Exts.P1 and P4 orders, th the 5th respondent filed Ext.P5 revision dated 5 April, 2010 before the first respondent. Ext.P5 revision is pending disposal.

(2.) THOUGH several reliefs are claimed in the W.P.(C).No.30927 OF 2010 3 Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being it would be sufficient, if direction is issued to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 revision expeditiously. Learned counsel appearing for the th 5 respondent has no objection to such a relief being granted.