K. Bhaskaran vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 3981 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.29718 OF 2012(L)


PETITIONER:

                 K. BHASKARAN
                 AGED 53 YEARS
                 HEAD MASTER, (UNDER SUSPENSION), ABDUE REHIMAN SMARAKAM UP
                 SCHOOL, CHENDAYAD, CHENDAYAD P.O., 670692, KANNUR DISTRICT,
                 NOW RESIDING AT GREEN VIEW, HERAMPARAMBA P.O., 670693.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.K.ANAND
                 SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL

RESPONDENTS:

       1         THE MANAGER
                 ABDUE REHIMAN SMARAKAM UP SCHOOL, CHENDAYAD, CHENDAYAD P.O.,
                 PANOOR-670692, KANNUR DISTRICT.

       2         THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                 PANOOR-670692, KANNUR DISTRICT.

       3         THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                 THALASSERY - 670 501.

       4         SRI.DINESAN MADATHIL
                 KUNIYIL HOUSE, POST CHENDAYAD, PANOOR 670692.

       5         SMT.A.K.REMADEVI
                 SENIOR ASSISTANT, U P S A, (NOW IN CHARGE AS HEAD MASTER),
                 ABDU REHIMAN SMARAKAM U P SCHOOL, CHENAYAD, CHENAYAD P.O.,
                 670692, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

       6         THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                 KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

       7         P.SUBAIR
                 PTA PRESIDENT, PARAKKAL HOUSE, POST CHENDAYAD, PANOOR 670692.

                 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
                 BY ADV. SRI.M.SAJJAD

OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29718 OF 2012(L)

                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

When this matter was called today, the learned counsel

for the party respondents submitted that this writ petition may

have become infructuous, because the petitioner has retired

from service.

2. I notice that what is under challenge in this case is

the order retaining the petitioner under suspension for a period

of more than fifteen days. This order was issued in the year

2012 and more than eight years have now elapsed.

I am also therefore, of the view that no further orders are

necessary in this writ petition and that the cause has now

become infructuous.

This writ petition is thus closed, without any further

orders.

SD/-

                                        DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                               JUDGE