A.P. Kunhammad vs Mini Joseph
2021 Latest Caselaw 16092 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          RP NO. 506 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11750/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                              ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/7th RESPONDENT IN WPC.NO.11750/2020:

           A.P. KUNHAMMAD
           AGED 74 YEARS
           S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, GENERAL SECRETARY, C.H MUHAMMED KOYA
           MEMORIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. KAVUMPADY,
           THILANKERI P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHIKKIAT
           HOUSE, KAVUMPADI, THILLANKERI P.O,
           KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702.

           BY ADVS.
           M.SASINDRAN
           JOMY K. JOSE



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 AND 8 IN
WPC.NO.11750/2020:

    1      MINI JOSEPH
           AGED 50 YEARS
           W/O. ADV. WILBER BASTIAN, HEADMISTRESS IN CHARGE, C.H
           MUHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
           KAVUMPADI IN KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
           KEZHAKKETHAYYIL HOUSE, ULIKKAL P.O DISTRICT PIN 670 705

    2      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
           EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

    3      THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

    4      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
           KANNUR, PIN 670 001

    5      THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 670 001
 RP NO. 506 OF 2021

                                     2



     6      SECRETARY
            GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
            SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

     7      P.P MUHAMOOD
            AGED 62, S/O. KOYA, LAILA MANZIL, KUNHIPALLY, KOTTAL
            P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 005

     8      T. MAJEED,
            AGED 58 YEARS, BAITH UL FALAH, THILLANKERI P.O, IRITTY
            TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702


OTHER PRESENT:

            GP SUNIL KURIAKOSE




     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 506 OF 2021

                                   3




                              ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court

dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.(C)No.11750/2020, has been filed with

the allegation that the directions therein are contrary to the ones

issued by this Court in another writ petition filed by the review

petitioner, namely W.P.(C)No.27853/2020.

2. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the

review petitioner, submitted that, as is evident from Annexure AI --

which is the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27853/2020 -- this Court had

directed the competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala to

take up the statutory Revision filed by his client, staking

Managership to the School in question but that, in the judgment

sought to be reviewed, this Court has directed the District

Educational Officer (DEO) to consider the request for the same

purpose made by the writ petitioner. Sri.M.Sasindran, therefore,

prayed that the directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed

be ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as Annexure AI

judgment is complied with by the Government.

3. Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the respondent,

however, submitted that the directions in the judgment sought to RP NO. 506 OF 2021

be reviewed and in Annexure AI are completely different because,

in the latter, the claim of the review petitioner was for being the

Managership of the School between 10.07.2019 and 21.10.2020.

He pointed out that as far as the present case is concerned, the

claim of Managership is between 22.10.2020 and 2023.

4. Sri.M.Sasindran, however, responded to this by saying

that the submissions of Sri.R.Surendran are not accurate because,

what is under challenge in the Revision Petition mentioned in

Annexure AI judgment is the validity of the election itself and

therefore, that if that is allowed then, consequently, the present

claim of the writ petitioner cannot also be countenanced.

5. Though I hear the learned counsel for the parties make

such dialectical contentions, the fact remains that I had only

directed the DEO to take up the applications of the writ petitioner

and to dispose of them, after hearing all parties who are interested

in the issue. As far as Annexure AI is concerned, said judgment

was delivered noticing that a statutory Revision had been filed by

the review petitioner before the Government.

6. The only contention of the review petitioner is that if the

exercise pursuant to the directions in Annexure AI judgment goes RP NO. 506 OF 2021

in his favour, then any decision that may be taken by the DEO,

consequent to the judgment sought to be reviewed, will become

otiose.

7. Even should I find favour with the submissions of the

petitioner as afore, the fact remains that if the Government takes a

view in favour of the review petitioner, through the exercise as

ordered in Annexure AI, obviously, he will be at liberty to bring it

to the notice of the DEO, who will, thereafter, be obligated to

consider the same also and decide whether any modification to his

order, as directed by this Court, would become warranted.

8. I do not, therefore, think that it is necessary to review

the judgment, except to clarify that in the event the review

petitioner is able to obtain any orders in his favour pursuant to the

directions in Annexure AI judgment, he will be at liberty to bring it

to the notice of the DEO; which Authority will, thereafter, hear the

parties and advert to the orders of the Government and take a

decision as to whether any modification would be required to the

orders which he has been directed to pass in terms of the

directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed.

9. Before parting, I must also deal with one of the RP NO. 506 OF 2021

apprehensions of Sri.M.Sasindran that during efflux of time before

his client's revision petition is decided through the process ordered

in Annexure AI judgment, writ petitioner is likely to fill up all the

posts. I am afraid that this is not an issue that is directly in front of

this Court because, all that I have considered is the claim of the

Headmistress of the School - Smt.Mini Joseph, to be granted

approval. That certainly can be done as per the judgment sought to

be reviewed and any other appointment which the writ petitioner

makes, asserting his rights as the Manager of the School, even if

the DEO finds in his favour, will certainly be available to the review

petitioner to impugn and challenge as per law appropriately,

depending upon the orders that he may obtain pursuant to the

directions in Annexure A1 judgment.

This review petition is thus closed, with the afore

clarifications.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp RP NO. 506 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF RP 506/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE AI TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2020 IN WP(C) NO.27853/2020.

ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GEDN-F2/177/2020-

G.EDN. DATED 22.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 12.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B4/1553/21 DATED 20.07.2021 ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE AV TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER ON 26.07.2021 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.