Aouse K.V vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 2210 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
        Thursday, the 24th day of February 2022 / 5th Phalguna, 1943
                  IA.NO.1/2022 IN WP(C) NO. 13124 OF 2021
PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:

  1. THE STATE COUNCIL FOR OPEN AND LIFELONG EDUCATION, (SCOLE-KERALA),
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SCOLE-KERALA, VIDYA BHAVAN,
     POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
  2. THE SECRETARY, THE STATE COUNCIL FOR OPEN AND LIFELONG EDUCATION,
     (SCOLE-KERALA) SCOLE-KERALA, VIDYA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
  3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE STATE COUNCIL FOR OPEN AND LIFELONG
     EDUCATION, (SCOLE-KERALA) SCOLE-KERALA, VIDYA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.

RESPONDENTS-PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

  1. AOUSE K.V., AGED 45 YEARS, SECTION ASSISTANT, SCOLE-KERALA, DISTRICT
     OFFICE, GOVERNMENT MODEL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CAMPUS,
     KOZHIKODE-1, RESIDING AT VALIYATHODY HOUSE, CHERUVAYOOR P.O.,
     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
  2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
     EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to clarify or modify
the judgment dated 15th July, 2021 in W.P(C) No. 13124 of 2021 to the
effect that the petitioner may be heard by the Administrative Head of the
SCOLE-Kerala and that a minutes of the hearing be placed before the
General Council for consideration and decision, in the interest of
justice.


     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this Court's judgment
dated 15.07.2021 and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN ,
Advocates for the petitioners in IA/ R2 to R4 in WP(C) and of M/s. GEORGE
ABRAHAM and JOBY DANIEL JOSEPH Advocate for R1 in IA/ Petitioner in WP(C),
the court passed the following:




                                                             p.t.o
                         ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                      -----------------------------------
                             I.A. No.1 of 2022
                                       in
                       W.P.(C) No.13124 of 2021
            -------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 24th day of February, 2022

                               ORDER

This application is filed seeking clarification of the judgment

dated 15.7.2021 in W.P.(C) No.13124/2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners herein, the

learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for

the writ petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

2nd and 4th respondents in the writ petition that the writ petition

had been disposed of directing that in case the petitioner

approaches the 4th respondent with a representation, the same

shall be placed before the 2 nd respondent, who shall consider the

representation and pass orders after hearing the petitioner

through any appropriate means including video conferencing.

4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3

in the writ petition, that is, the petitioners in this I.A., submits that

the 2nd respondent Council is a body consisting of 43 members and

that the direction to the Council to hear the petitioner is creating

difficulties in the matter of consideration of the representation. It

is submitted that an order had been passed by the Secretary of the I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.13124 of 2021

Council as Annexure A1 dated 9.9.2021. However, the matter had

been taken up before this Court and this Court in its judgment in

W.P.(C) No.23063/2021 had held that since the direction in the

present judgment was to the Council to hear and pass orders on

the representation, the petitioner ought to be heard either

physically or through virtual mode by the Council itself.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the I.A.

submits that the hearing of the writ petitioner by the Council may

render the orders unworkable and since the Secretary had already

heard the writ petitioner, the Secretary may be permitted to place

a statement before the Council, which will consider the matter and

pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. It is submitted

that the Council does not meet regularly and therefore, orders may

be permitted to be passed through circulation, if required.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that

the petitioner has no objection to the Secretary hearing the

petitioner but the matter requires a consideration by the Council in

view of the fact that this Court had directed such consideration. It

is also submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to place his

arguments before the Secretary for being considered by the

Council.

I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.13124 of 2021

7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and

having considered the contentions advanced and in the interest of

justice, I am of the opinion that the following clarification can be

issued :-

It is directed that the Secretary shall put the writ

petitioner on notice and hear him again. The petitioner shall be

permitted to place an argument note before the Secretary, who

shall prepare a hearing note and forward the same, along with the

argument note, to the Council for appropriate decision including

through circulation, if found necessary.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/24.2.2022

24-02-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar