Mohammed Shakkir C.H vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19606 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 19606 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Mohammed Shakkir C.H vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2021

WP(C) NO. 19415 OF 2021        1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 19415 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          MOHAMMAD SHAKKIR C.H,
          AGED 30 YEARS
          S/O. HAMEED MUSLIAR, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KADAMERI
          AMSOM, KADAMERI DESOM, KADMERI POST, VATAKARA TALUK,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          N.SHANOJ
          C.MOHAMMED HABEEB
          S.KRISHNALAL


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM POST-695 001

    2     THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
          HOUSING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

    3     THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
          EDUCATION,
          KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 001.

    4     THE MANAGER,
          N.A.M. HSS PERINGATHUR-670 675

    5     NOUFAL,
          AGED 32 YEARS
          PANOLI VEEDU, THENDA PARAMPU, KADAVATHOOR,
          THALASSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN-670 101



          SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP
 WP(C) NO. 19415 OF 2021      2




THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19415 OF 2021                      3

                                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he had worked as a HSST Computer Science

Teacher in a new batch at N.A.M. Higher Secondary School, Peringathor,

during the period from 2015-2019. During the above period, the post held by

the petitioner was not approved by the Government. Later, when approval

was granted to the post, applications were invited and the 4th respondent was

appointed ignoring the service rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner

states that narrating his grievance, he has lodged a representation before the

2nd respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before

this Court seeking the following relief:

i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider Exhibit P5 representation submitted by the petitioner within two weeks.

2. I have heard Sri.Shanoj N., the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government pleader.

3. Having regard to the limited nature of the relief sought for, notice

to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed of by issuing the following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

made in the representation, there will be a direction to the 2nd

respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P5 after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner or his authorised

representative as well as the party respondents/affected

parties.

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

event, within a period of two 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.