The Manager vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7513 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
         FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 20392 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

           THE MANAGER
           S.D.P.Y. K.P.M. HIGH SCHOOL,
           EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682502

           BY ADVS.
           P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
           K.SUDHINKUMAR
           S.K.ADHITHYAN
           SABU PULLAN
           GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
           K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)

RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
           GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

     2     THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
           DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

     3     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024

     4     SANKINI M. RAJ
           MULLOTHUKAD HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O.,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006

           SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20392 OF 2022                   2




                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the Manager of S.D.P.Y K.P.M High

School, Edavanakkad. When a vacancy arose in the school on 1.6.2017,

the petitioner appointed one Fazeela. He contends that the matter was

challenged in appeal by the 4th respondent and the 3rd respondent

allowed the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is stated to

have preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent but the

same was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have

preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent along with an

application for stay. Seeking expeditious consideration of the revision

petition, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that though

the order dated 3.2.2022 of the DGE has not been produced before this

Court, if the revision petition and the application for stay is pending

consideration, the same can be heard and disposed of in accordance with

the law.

Having regard to the submissions advanced, this writ petition is

disposed of by issuing the following directions:

a) If Ext.P1 revision petition and application for stay is pending

before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent shall consider the same

and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

b) If the petitioner seeks early hearing of the stay petition, the

1st respondent shall consider the same.

c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along

with this judgment before the respondent to ensure compliance.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20392/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-02-2022.

Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.

535242/2022 IN REVISION PETITION NO. EC 3871/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18-06-2022.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL