Kerala High Court
Jisha Rajesh vs The Director Of General Education on 1 June, 2022
WP(C) NO. 17758 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 17758 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JISHA RAJESH
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT AREEKKAL HOUSE, POST
NADAKKUTHAZHA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -
673 101.
BY ADVS.
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
ATHIRA A.MENON
AMAL S KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
2 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 101.
SMT SABEENA P ISMAIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17758 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
Arakkilad Junior Basic School, Vatakara, was being managed by an
educational agency consisting of the parents of the petitioner and her siblings.
Her mother, Vasanthakumari, was acting as the approved Manager from the
year 1994. While so, the mother of the petitioner filed an application for
change of management in favour of the petitioner. The said request was
rejected by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contends that being aggrieved
by the aforesaid order, she has preferred an appeal before the 1st
respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also submitted a
consent deed executed by her father and sister. When the appeal was not
taken up expeditiously, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P4
reminder. Though various other reliefs are claimed, when the matter came up
for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the appeal preferred before the 1st respondent, which has been
numbered as G2-1885/2022 be considered in the light of Ext.P5.
2. Heard Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt.Sabeena, 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 the appeal numbered as G2-
1885/2022 preferred by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P5, after
affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or
virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative
and other affected parties, if any.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any
event, within a period of three 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
IAP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17758/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 31/03/1997 ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY VASANTHAKUMARI ON 28/10/2020 ALONG WITH
THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.C/3442/20/D.DIS. FROM THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO VASANTHAKUMARI DATED
13/12/2021.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
POSTAL RECEIPT.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT IN STAMP PAPER
ATTESTED BY NOTARY PUBLIC DATED
04/03/2022.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
