Subish K. S vs Council For The Indian School ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11830 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                       RP NO. 1077 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENTWP(C) 23605/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          SUBISH K. S.S/O P.SUKUMARAN
          KAMBALAKOLLY HOUSE, MUNNANAD P. O.
          NILGIRIS, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 643239

          BY ADV P.D.RAPHAEL



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS
          - CISCE REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
          SECRETARY, PRAGATI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR
          47-48 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110019

    2     THE CHAIRMAN
          COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS
          PRAGATI HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, 47-48 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI,
          PIN - 110019

    3     AUXILIUM ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL
          REP. BY ITS MANAGER
          VADUVANCHAL P. O., WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN - 673581

    4     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY THE SECRETARY
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001

    5     UNION OF INDIA
          REP. BY THE SECRETARY
          DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY
          MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN
          DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, RAJPATH AREA
          CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
 RP NO. 1077 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 23605/2022
                                   2


            SMT PARVATHY K-GP




     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 1077 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 23605/2022
                                  3

                           O R D E R

This petition, seeking review of the

judgment of this Court, has been filed saying

that an application for amendment - numbered as

I.A.No.1/2022 in the writ petition - had not

been allowed; and further that prayer No.5 had

not been acceded to.

2. I have heard Sri.P.D.Raphael - learned

counsel for the petitioner, as also

Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar - learned Standing Counsel

for the 1st respondent.

3. I am afraid that I cannot find favour

with the submissions of Sri.P.D.Raphael as

regards the amendment application because, even

without the same being allowed formally, I have

granted the reliefs sought for therein by the

petitioner. In fact, this is affirmed by

Sri.P.D.Raphael also, admitting that direction RP NO. 1077 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 23605/2022

No.2 in the judgment given liberty to the

petitioner to invoke all other remedies.

4. As far as the prayer of the petitioner

for a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose

of Ext.P3 is concerned, same was never impelled

by the petitioner at the time when the matter

was argued and therefore, was not granted.

However, I am of the view that if Ext.P3 is

pending before the 1st respondent, they can be

asked to dispose it of in terms of law, after

hearing the petitioner also.

In such perspective, I allow this review

petition to the limited extent of ordering the

1st respondent to take up Ext.P3, if it is still

pending and dispose it of as per law, after

hearing the petitioner, as also the School;

thus culminating in an appropriate order and

necessary action thereon, without any avoidable RP NO. 1077 OF 2022 IN WP(C) 23605/2022

delay.

I make it clear that this direction is in

addition to the others already granted in the

judgment sought to be reviewed.

Sd/-

                                    DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   SAS                                    JUDGE