Kerala High Court
P.M.Narayanan Namboodiri vs Director Of General Education on 23 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 42344 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
P.M.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
MANAGER, AUP SCHOOL, MARAKKARA, MALAPPURAM-676 554.
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 519.
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM-676 534.
4 P.V.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
PADINJATTU MANA, MARAKKARA, MALAPPURAM-676 554.
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No.42344 of 2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is presently functioning as the Manager of
the AUP School, Marakkara. He has been continuing as such with approval from
2006 onwards. The petitioner asserts that based on certain complaints
received from a teacher, steps were initiated by the 3rd respondent to remove
the petitioner from his capacity as the Manager of the School. The petitioner
states that challenging the said order, he has preferred Ext.P8 before the 2nd
respondent, and his prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of directions to
the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 in the light of Exts.P6 and P7
judgments. The petitioner also prays that until a decision is taken on Ext.P8,
the petitioner, who is continuing as Manager, be permitted to continue as such.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader.
3. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought, no prejudice
would be caused to the 4th respondent if notice is dispensed with.
4. 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) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to
consider Ext.P8 in the light of Exts.P6 and P7, after
affording an opportunity of being heard, either
physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his
authorized representative, the 4th respondent and other
affected parties, if any.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed
expeditiously, in any event, within three months from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If the
petitioner is continuing as Manager of the School, he
shall be permitted to continue as such till an order is
passed on Ext.P8.
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) 42344/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF HIS APPROVAL ORDER
NO.D/6018/06/K.DIS DATED 4.10.2006 FROM
10.4.2006 ONWARDS ISSUED BY THE AEO.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER AEO. NO. C/1438/2021
DATED 3.11.2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.110/1976
DATED 13.10.1992.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED
18.11.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.12.2022
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.2015 IN
W.P.(C).NO.25492/2015.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2015 IN
W.A.NO.2449/2015.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.12.2022.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
