The Manager vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22696 Ker

WP(C) NO. 25815 OF 2021              1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 25815 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

             THE MANAGER,
             CAUP SCHOOL, MAMPAD, KIZHAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD
             DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
             HARISH R. MENON
             K.N.ABHA
             A.G.PRASANTH
             K.S.SREEJA



RESPONDENT/S:

       1     STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
             EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GENERAL SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

       2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             PALAKKAD, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, ROBINSON ROAD, OPP.
             GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD-678014.

       3     THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
             ALATHUR, ERATTAKULAM, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
             678541.




             SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP




        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    19.11.2021,   THE    COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25815 OF 2021                2



                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the Manager of the CAUP School,

Mampad. He contends that the approval made by the petitioner of a full-time

language Teacher was rejected by the 3rd respondent on unsustainable

grounds. The petitioner had challenged the order by preferring a statutory

appeal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that in the light of

orders produced as Exhibits-P3 and P4, the petitioner is entitled to the relief in

the appeal. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this

Court seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass

expeditious orders on Exhibit-P5.

2. When this matter came up for consideration, Sri.K.T.Shyam

Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view

of the pendency of Ext.P5, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are

issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within a

timeframe and with due notice.

3. I have heard Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at

the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up, consider

and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 appeal in the light of Exts.

P3 and P4, as per procedure and in accordance with law, after

affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of three months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned

respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25815/2021

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 15/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE AEO, OTTAPALAM.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 01/09/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL