Kerala High Court
The A.M. Higher Secondary School vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2021
WP(C) NO. 21036 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21036 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
THE A.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
TIRURKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676519.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21036 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Manager of AM Higher Secondary School, Tirurkad,
aided school functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala
Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
2. The petitioner contends that after the issuance of the Staff
Fixation Order for the academic year 2019-2020, the Super Check Cell
conducted an inspection and thereafter issued Ext.P2 notice informing about
the reduction of 5 divisions and corresponding posts. The petitioner contends
that materials were placed before the 2nd respondent to substantiate that
Ext.P1 did not warrant any interference. However, ignoring the materials
presented by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 order. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the
1st respondent, which is pending. Being aggrieved by the delay in
consideration of the appeal, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
directions.
3. Sri. M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for issuance of
directions to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 appeal in an expeditious
manner with due notice.
4. I have heard Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government
Pleader.
5. 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) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
assertions made in Ext.P6 appeal, there will be a direction
to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass
appropriate orders on Ext.P6, 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
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21036/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER
2019-2020 DATED 20.07.2019 OF THE DEO,
MALAPPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SC/10/2020/KKD
DTED 07.02.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE MANAGER
DATED 29.02.2020
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE HEADMASTER
DATED 13.03.2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SC/1020/KKD
DATED 03.09.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15.09.2021
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
