It is pointed out by Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that the 6th respondent Manager of the Aided Lower Primary School concerned, had ordered to suspend the petitioner from service as per Ext.P-1 and that though Ext.P-1 was issued without specifying that it will cover only a period of 15 days therefrom in the provisions contained in Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A KER, the 5th respondent AEO, Perambra had subsequently issued Ext.P-6 order dated 12.8.2016, whereby it has been ordered that the suspension of petitioner from service as per Ext.P-1 dated 3.8.2016, will stand extended after the expiry of the 15 days period. That, aggrieved by Ext.P-6 order, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P-7 revision petition before the 1st respondent State Government by taking recourse to remedy available under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of instruction that the petitioner would limit his prayer for a direction from this Court to ensure that the competent authority of the 1st respondent takes a considered decision on Ext.P-7 revision petition after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 6th respondent Manager without further
