Kerala High Court
Balakrishnan Kidavu vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
BALAKRISHNAN KIDAVU
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. RARUKUTTY NAIR, KOODATHINKAL HOUSE,
KUTTIYATTU PARAMBATHU,
ERAMANGALAM P. O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 612.
BY ADVS.
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
P.R.REENA
MAYA M.
P.S.SIDHARTHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 014.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THAMARASSERY P. O, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 574.
4 C.P. VENUGOPALAN NAIR
S/O. RAMANKUTTY KIDAVU,
CHERIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
EKAROOL P. O, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 574.
5 NANMINDA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, P.O NANMINDA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 613.
SRI. JIMMY GEORGE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, the petitioner was
elected as the Manager of the 5th respondent School
for the period commencing from 24.01.2018 to
23.01.2021 by a committee in accordance with Ext.P1
bye-law of the 5th respondent School and the same has
been approved by the 3rd respondent District
Educational Officer in exercise of the powers under
Rule 4 (3) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules.
Ext.P3 order was challenged by the 4th respondent
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021 and this
Court by judgment dated 20.12.2021 disposed of the
writ petition relegating the petitioner therein to avail
statutory remedy before the Director General of
Education, the 2nd respondent. The relevant portion of
W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022
the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021 reads as
follows:-
"Resultantly, while declining interference
with Ext.P5 order, there will be a direction
to the petitioners to approach the DGE and
prefer an appeal under Rule 4(3) of
Chapter III of the KER. If the appeal is
preferred within a period of two weeks
from today, the DGE shall entertain the
same and take a decision on its merits
within a period of two months from the
date of filing of the appeal. Before passing
orders, all the affected parties including
the petitioners and the party respondents
shall be afforded an opportunity of being
heard. To enable the petitioners to
approach the DGE and avail the statutory
remedy, the interim order granted by this
Court on 29.3.2021 shall remain in force
for a period of two weeks from today. Till
such date, the 1st petitioner shall not
make any appointments nor take any
policy decision in respect of the school."
(emphasis supplied)
2. The petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in
W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021 and the petitioners therein
are respondents 4 and 5. The apprehension of the
petitioner is that the 4th respondent may file an appeal
and obtain an interim order behind the back of the
W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022
petitioner from the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the
petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before
the 2nd respondent stating that in case any appeal is
preferred by the 4th respondent, before passing any
interim orders therein the petitioner shall also be given
an opportunity of being heard. This writ petition is
filed for a direction to consider Ext.P4 and afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before any
orders are passed in the appeal filed by the 4 th
respondent against Ext.P3 order.
3. Going by the judgment of this Court in W.P.
(C) No.8241 of 2021, the relevant portion thereof is
extracted above, I find that, the apprehension of the
petitioner is misconceived. This Court in the aforesaid
judgment has specifically stated that before passing
orders, all affected parties including the petitioners and
the party respondents shall be afforded an opportunity
of being heard. The petitioner was a party respondent
W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022
in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021. Necessarily before
passing any orders on appeal preferred against Ext.P3
the petitioner will be heard.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SPR
W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BYELAW OF THE NANMINDA
HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY DATED
10.05.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
A5/549/2018/K.DIS DATED 20.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
A5/764/21 KDS DATED 20.03.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2021.
RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL.
