Kerala High Court
Anu George vs The State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2022
RP NO. 485 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
RP NO. 485 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.17809/2022 DATED 01.06.2022 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER :
ANU GEORGE
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. T.M.GEORGE, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANKURISSI,
MANKARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678613,
NOW RESIDING AT JYOTHIS, PUTHALATH PARAMBA,
ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673303,
NOW WORKING AS THE HEAD MASTER,
BEM LP SCHOOL, ANNASSERY, THALAKKALATHUR,
KOZHIKODE-673317.
BY ADV E.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.
2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHOMBALA, CHOMBALA P.O., PIN-673308.
3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CHEVAYUR, CHEVAYUR P.O., PIN-673017.
4 THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
VAZHUTHACAUD-POOJAPPURA ROAD JUNCTION, DPI,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695014.
RP NO. 485 OF 2022 2
5 DIOCESE OF MALABAR CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA,
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF CSI DIOCESAN SCHOOLS,
(MALABAR AND WAYANAD AREA), MALABAR DIOCESAN
EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, (FORMER NORTH KERALA DIOCESAN
EDUCATION AGENCY), REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE
MANAGER,
CSI CORPORATE MANAGER'S OFFICE, BANK ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673001.
6 SMT. RENJISHA GILBERT,
HEAD MISTRESS, BEM UP SCHOOL, CHOMBALA,
CHOMBALA P.O., PIN-673308.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 485 OF 2022 3
ORDER
This review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 1.6.2022
in W.P.(C) No.17809/2022.
2. I have heard Sri. E. Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner had challenged Ext.P2 order by which the petitioner was
transferred to another school and Ext.P3 order by which the 6th respondent was
transferred to the school in which the petitioner was working.
4. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court, among other directions,
had ordered the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 be kept in abeyance till Ext.P5
appeal preferred by the petitioner was heard and disposed of by the DGE. It was
also ordered that the direction above shall not apply if the 6th respondent has
already taken charge on the strength of Ext.P3 order. The learned counsel points
out that unless Ext.P2 proceedings are also kept in abeyance subject to the very
same rider, serious hardship would be caused.
5. I find considerable merit in the submissions advanced. There appears
to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
6. In that view of the matter, the judgment dated 1.6.2022 shall stand
reviewed to the limited extent of ordering that proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2
and P3 shall be kept in abeyance till Ext.P5 appeal is heard and disposed of by
the DGE. It is made clear that the above direction shall not apply if the 6th
respondent has already taken charge on the strength of Ext.P3.
The Review Petition is allowed to the above limited extent.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
