P.S. Mani vs Director General Of Education
2022 Latest Caselaw 8792 Ker

WP(C) NO. 15682 OF 2021           1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 15682 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          P.S. MANI, AGED 54 YEARS,
          S/O. SIVARAMAN, MANAGER,
          V.M. LP SCHOOL, PALAKKAPOTTA,
          AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
          BY ADVS.
          DR. GEORGE ABRAHAM
          JOBY D JOSEPH


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

    2     ASSISTANT EDCUATIONAL OFFICER,
          KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD 678 506.

    3     ANITHA. C.,
          HEADMISTRESS IN-CHARGE, V.M. LP. SCHOOL,
          PALAKKAPOTTA, AYILOOR P.O.
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 510.
          BY ADVS.
          V.A.MUHAMMED
          M.SAJJAD

          SRI. PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15682 OF 2021                    2



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the manager of V.M.L.P. School,

Palakkapotta. He has certain grievances against the 3rd respondent who is acting

as Headmistress-in-charge of the school. The petitioner asserts that he has

preferred Ext.P7 petition before the 1st respondent seeking initiation of

appropriate action which is stated to be pending. The prayer in this writ petition

is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 and take a decision

within a time frame with due notice.

2. I have heard Dr. George Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd

respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

3. 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 by issuing the following

directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7,

after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his

authorised representative and the 3rd respondent.

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.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15682/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER APPOINTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS HEADMISTRESS IN-CHARGE.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, DATED 29.11.2013.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9/3/2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED SENIORITY LIST DATED 1/7/2021 OF THE SCHOOL.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/3/2020.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23/3/2021 .

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL