Joelin Joseph Mampilly vs Omana
2021 Latest Caselaw 23126 Ker

Con.Case(C) No.1886/2021                    1/4

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                          PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
          Wednesday, the 24th day of November 2021 / 3rd Agrahayana, 1943
               CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1886 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 17997/2021
   PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:

           JOELIN JOSEPH MAMPILLY, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.SABIN THOMAS,
           UPST, ST.GEORGE'S HIGH SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM,
           KOCHI - 682 024, RESIDING AT NEREVEETTIL HOUSE,
           THRIKKAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 21. PH:9847616759

        BY ADVS. M/S. ELVIN PETER P.J., K.R.GANESH.

   RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC:


           SMT.OMANA, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

         BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
        This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
   24.11.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:

                                                                     P.T.O.
 Con.Case(C) No.1886/2021                     2/4




                                  RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
                                   ---------------------------------
                                Cont.Case (C)No. 1886 of 2021
                                                  in
                                    W.P.(C) No.17997 of 2021
                                  ----------------------------------
                           Dated this the 24th day of November, 2021


                                            ORDER

I have heard Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned counsel would point out that while

disposing of W.P.(C) No.17997 of 2021, this Court had specifically directed the

DEO, Ernakulam to pass orders on Annexure-A10 representation in the light of

the law laid down by this Court in Annexure-A9 judgment. The learned counsel

would urge that the DEO, Ernakulam was a party in the writ petition which

resulted in Annexure-A9 judgment. It is contended that this Court had

directed the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition and this was

complied with. Relying on Annexure-A6, it is urged that the same is the School

Proforma uploaded by the Manager of the School in the portal maintained by

the Educational Department wherein details of the students studying in the

English Medium are mentioned. Sri.Elvin Peter points out that a perusal of

Annexure-A6 would reveal that as many as 538 students are studying in the

English medium and only 44 students are studying in the Malayalam medium.

It is based on Annexure-A6 that the approval of Staff Fixation is done by none Con.Case(C) No.1886/2021 3/4

other than the respondent herein. The learned counsel has also produced

Annexure-A15, which is the copy of the proceedings dated 18.3.2002 of the

Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam in respect of the very same School,

and it is pointed out that the Deputy Director had accorded sanction to open

English medium division in Standard V and VIII subject to the condition that

there will be at least 50 students willing to study and there will be no financial

commitment to the Government. All these aspects are known to the

respondent and it is ignoring the same that the impugned order is passed with

intent to overreach the directions issued by this Court, contends the learned

counsel. From Annexure-A13 order produced before this Court by the learned

Government Pleader, it appears that the only reason stated by the respondent

for rejecting the request is that the Manager had not produced the records

evidencing the fact that English medium has been sanctioned to the respective

School.

5. Prima facie, it appears that the submissions made by Sri.Elvin Peter

carries considerable weight. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the

memo filed by the Senior Government Pleader.

The learned Government Pleader shall respond to the affidavit.

Post after ten days.

Sd/-

                                                       RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
                                                                JUDGE
        DSV




24-11-2021                         /True Copy/                             Assistant Registrar
 Con.Case(C) No.1886/2021                  4/4

                           APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1886/2021
Annexure A6                 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL PROFORMA SENT TO THE EDUCATION
                            DEPARTMENT BY THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL.
Annexure A9                 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/11/2020 IN WP(C)
                            NO.13564/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure A10                TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/08/2021
                            SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Annexure A13                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/29412/2021 DATED
                            06/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Annexure A15                TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.B2/31310/01(2)KDIS DATED

18/03/2002 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.