Kerala High Court
T.D.Raveendranathan Kartha vs N.Sujaya on 17 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942
Con.Case(C).No.2158 OF 2020 IN WP(C)No.37830/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)No.37830/2017(C) DATED
02.04.2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
T.D.RAVEENDRANATHAN KARTHA,
AGED 91 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN POTTI,
THURUTHIKKADU, THURAVOOR P.O,
CHERTHALA,
NOW RESIDING AT PULIKKILLATHU HOUSE,
NEAR SATELLITE TOWNSHIP,
KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 030
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH
SRI.V.S.NOWSHAD
RESPONDENT:
N.SUJAYA,
FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER,
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 524
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COC No.2158/2020
:2 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2021
The Contempt of Court Case has been filed by the
petitioner alleging that the respondent has violated the
directions of this Court contained in judgment dated
02.04.2019 in W.P.(C) No.37830/2017. This Court disposed
of the writ petition with the following directions:-
"In the circumstances, I set aside Ext.P1 order
of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent shall
re-consider the issue of appointment of Manager and
select a person as Manager, taking into account the
ability and competency of candidate/s and the interest
of the school and the students. I make it clear that I
have not pronounced anything on merits, on the
eligibility or otherwise of the 5th respondent to get
appointed as Manager. Till such a decision is taken,
the 5th respondent will continue to act as Manager. A
decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of
three months."
Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent has
passed Annexure-E order dated 03.09.2019.
COC No.2158/2020
2. The petitioner submits that instead of complying
with the directions of this Court, the respondent has confirmed
the earlier order passed in the matter and has thereby violated
the directions contained in the judgment. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, relevant factors are not
considered while finding the selectee suitable for the post of
Manager of the School.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent.
4. This Court passed the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.37830/2017 finding that the respondent has not
considered the suitability of the selectee-Manager during
selection. Therefore, this Court directed the respondent to
reconsider the appointment of the Manager and select a
person as Manager taking into account the ability and
competency of candidate and the interest of the School.
5. A perusal of Annexure-E order dated 03.09.2019
would show that the respondent has, in pursuance of the
COC No.2158/2020
directions of this Court, heard the parties to the dispute and
passed Annexure-E order. In the order, the respondent has
stated that the person now selected as Manager of the School
pursuant to the directions of this Court is competent and
satisfying the requirements of Rule 8(4) of Chapter III of the
KER. The respondent also found that the selectee does not
suffer from any disability arising from Rule 3A. The
respondent further noted that there is no complaint regarding
administration of the School by the selectee. It was also
noted that the selectee has been administering the School to
the satisfaction of the respondent for the last two years.
Accordingly, the respondent found that the selectee is
competent to be appointed as the Manager of the School.
6. In such circumstances, I find that there is
substantial compliance of the directions of this Court
contained in the judgment dated 02.04.2019 in W.P.(C)
No.37830/2017. The technical arguments raised by the
counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient to hold that the
respondent has committed contempt of court.
COC No.2158/2020
As there is time bound compliance of the judgment
of this Court, this Contempt of Court Case is closed granting
liberty to the petitioner to challenge Annexure-E order, if he is
so advised.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/17.02.2021
COC No.2158/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2-4-
2019 IN WP(C) NO. 37830/17
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
2-09-2019 OF THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 2-09-
2019 OF ADV. R. MURALEEKRISHNAN
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED
1-09-2019 OF CHAMMANADU DEVASWOM.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-09-2019
OF THE RESPONDENT.
SR
