2025:KER:29393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 13280 OF 2025 PETITIONER: SUSAMMA M.C. AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. GEORGEKUTTY, U.P.S.T (RETIRED), ST. MARY’S H.S.S, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT VALUTHUNDIL HOUSE, MELILA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691508. BY ADVS. PAULSON THOMAS S.ANJUSHA RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695005. W.P.(C)No.13280 of 2025 :2: 2025:KER:29393 3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEO, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN – 695001. 4 CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, M.S.C. SCHOOLS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695004. BY ADV.SRI.V. VENUGOPAL, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.13280 of 2025 :3: 2025:KER:29393 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 The petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner as UPST has not been approved by the Educational Authorities for the reason that the Manager has not executed a bond. The petitioner would contend that in view of the judgment of this Court, the bond should be taken as executed and on the basis of the deemed bond, approval can be considered. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3. 3. Government Pleader pointed out that the claim now raised by the petitioner is highly belated and relates to the year 2008. I find that this is a matter which can be considered W.P.(C)No.13280 of 2025 :4: 2025:KER:29393 by the revisional authorities at the time of consideration of the revision petition. 4. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 revision petition before the 1st respondent. Ext.P3 being a statutory revision petition, the competent revisional authority has to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 revision petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C)No.13280 of 2025 :5: 2025:KER:29393 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13280/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 02/06/2008 AND APPROVED FROM 01/06/2011 BY DEO, KOTTARAKKARA. Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 10/2010/ G.EDN. DATED 12-01-2010. Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15-02- 2025. Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 19313/2024 DATED 30/05/2024. Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 7500/2023 DATED 06/03/2023.