Kerala High Court
N.Ashok Kumar (Expired vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.5847 OF 2011(E)
PETITIONERS:
1 N.ASHOK KUMAR (EXPIRED, MANAGER,
MANIKAVU NAVODAYA ADHIVASI AIDED
U.P.SCHOOL,CHOOTHUPARA.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT -
(DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED)
2 SRI.V.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN
NAIR, MANAGER, MANIKAVU NAVODAYA ADHIVASI AIDED
U.P.SCHOOL,CHOOTHUPARA.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT
(SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF THE DECEASED PETITIONER
SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR, AS PER ORDER DATED 15.01.2020 IN
I.A.NO.1/2019 IN WPC 5847/2011).
SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 673 122.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5847 OF 2011(E)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February 2021
When this matter was called today, it is reported that the
petitioner is no more.
2. The records reveal that the petitioner had approached
this Court impugning Ext.P12, as per which, the Government
had directed that certain amounts be recovered from him,
under the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala
Education Rules (KER), on the allegation that in spite of orders
issued to him, he had not reinstated the Headmaster of the
school, a certain Sri.P.V.Paulose.
3. However, when I go through Ext.P12, which is the
impugned order, it is clear that throughout the petitioner was
invoking his legal remedies against the orders of the
Educational Authorities, which finally led to the filing of Writ
Petition No.41151/2003, in which this Court directed the
Government to consider the statutory revision filed by him. It
is subsequently, after the same was also rejected, that
Sri.P.V.Paulose had been reinstated in service.
4. The Government thus alleges that it is on account of
the intransigent conduct of the petitioner, that Sri.P.V.Paulose
WP(C).No.5847 OF 2011(E)
had to be paid his salary and benefits, even when he was
under suspension, thus mulcting the petitioner with liability.
5. However, as I have already said above, since the
petitioner is no more, no recovery against him is possible and
in any event of the matter, since the petitioner was
continuously agitating his legal remedies throughout the entire
time, it will not be possible to impose the liability upon him
solely because he had done so.
6. That apart, I notice that, by an interim order dated
24.02.2011, this Court had interdicted the recovery of any
amounts, which position continues even as on day.
In the afore circumstances, I order that no recovery
based on Ext.P12 will be pursued against the petitioner or his
assets.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.5847 OF 2011(E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDNET
DATED 06.10.2001.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G3.15150/2002/K.DIS. DATED 28.05.2002.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.02.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REVISION BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2002.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION BY PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 13.01.2003.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)13295/2003
DATED 11.04.2003.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2001
ISSUED BY DPI.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07.11.2003.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)41151/2003
DATED 09.01.2004.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 12.08.2010 G.O.(RT)
NO.1407/08/GED DATED 19.03.08.
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT NO.G.O.(RT)96/2011/G.EDN. DATED
06.01.2011.
