The Manager, Kottathala ... vs A.P.M.Mohammad Hanish
2021 Latest Caselaw 21181 Ker

Con.Case(C) No.1017/2021                         1/2

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                              PRESENT
                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
               Wednesday, the 20th day of October 2021 / 28th Aswina, 1943
                CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1017 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 40219/2018

   PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:

           THE MANAGER, KOTTATHALA SURENDRAN MEMORIAL

           VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAVATTOM,

           KARUVELIL P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 505.



           BY ADV SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI.



   RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WPC:

   1.      SRI.A.P.M. MOHAMMAD HANISH, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

           GENERAL EDUCATION (S.C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

   2.      SRI.K. JEEVAN BABU, THE DIRECTOR,

           VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,

           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.

   3.      SMT.CHITRA O.S, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

           OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VHSE REGIONAL OFFICE,

           KOLLAM-691 001.



           GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENTS


        This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
   20.10.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:

                                                                    P.T.O.
 Con.Case(C) No.1017/2021                      2/2




                                         ORDER

Smt.K. Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted

that earnest efforts have been taken to comply with the directions in the

judgment, and that she will require time till 30/11/2021 to do so, since

the concurrence of the Cabinet of Ministers will require to be taken.

However, Smt.Krishnakumari, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submits that the afore request is unreasonable because the subject in

question is commerce, which has not undergone any change on account of the

implementation of NSQF and therefore, that a policy decision at the

instance of Cabinet of Ministers is not necessary and there are no

amendments to the Rules either.

When I go through the judgment in question, it is without doubt that

I had directed the posts with respect to the subject in question to be

filled up without delay and if, as stated by Smt.Krishnakumari, the posts

in question are already available without any change on account of the

implementation of NSQF, then certainly, the respondent must inform this

Court why time till 30/11/2021 has been sought for.

Post on 28/10/2021; on which day, this Court will decide whether any

further time is required to be granted or otherwise.

The personal appearance of respondents on 28/10/2021 is dispensed

with.

                                               Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE




20-10-2021                      /True Copy/                            Assistant Registrar