Sreeshma P.M vs Jayarajan V.V
2021 Latest Caselaw 6710 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

         Con.Case(C).No.130 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 23390/2020

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2020 IN WP(C) 23390/2020(W) OF
                      HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

             SREESHMA P.M.,
             AGED 35 YEARS,
             W/O. ARUNKUMAR K.V, LPSA,
             RAMAGURU UP SCHOOL, CHIRAKKAL,
             KANNUR - 670011, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.51,
             POLICE HOUSING NAGAR,
             KUZHUTHALLY, THAZHA CHOVVA P.O,
             KANNUR - 670018.

             BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

             JAYARAJAN V.V.,
             (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
             ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670562.


             BY ADV.
             SR.GP-SRI.GEORGE MATHEW VADAKKEL

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.130 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 23390/2020

                                       2

                                 JUDGMENT

This contempt case has been filed

alleging that, in spite of the directions in

the judgment dated 30/11/2020 in

W.P(C)No.23390 of 2020, no action has been

taken by the respondent to approve the

appointment of the petitioner.

2. However, the learned Senior

Government Pleader, Shri.Mathew George

Vadakkel, submitted that subsequent to the

judgment, another teacher had approached

this Court by filing R.P.No.81 of 2021,

which had been ordered by this Court

directing that she be also heard by the

respondent, while the exercise as ordered in

the judgment was complied with.

3. The learned Senior Government

Pleader submits that the respondent has now

heard both the teachers, as also the Manager

of the School and has found that the writ Con.Case(C).No.130 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 23390/2020

petitioner's claim is inferior to that of

the other teacher and that appropriate

orders will be issued. He, therefore, prayed

that this contempt case be closed.

4. When I hear the learned Senior

Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is

obvious that if the petitioner has any

grievance now subsisting, she will have to

challenge the new order to be issued by the

respondent in terms of law.

Reserving the afore liberty to the

petitioner, I close this contempt case

without any further orders.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/25.2.2021 Con.Case(C).No.130 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 23390/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN WP(C) NO. 23390/2020.