Fadil. E vs Director General Of Education
2022 Latest Caselaw 10361 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944

                     WP(C) NO. 31683 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:


  FADIL. E
  AGED 20 YEARS
  EDAPATTA HOUSE, PALLIPPADY,
  THRIKKANANGODE, MALAPPURAM-676123.

  BY ADVS.
  AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
  TONY AUGUSTINE


RESPONDENT/S:


   1   DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
       JAGATHY,
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6985014.

   2   THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
       UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676519.

   3   THE MANAGER,
       KERALA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND,
       VALLIKKAPPATTA, MANKADA VIA,
       MALAPPURAM-679324.


 SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 31683 OF 2022

                                       2


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that his mother Late Rajeena, was a Clerk working

in the Kerala School for the Blind, Vallikkappatta. She left her heavenly abode

on 09.04.2021 while in service. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is

stated to have preferred a formal application for appointment under the

Compassionate Employment Scheme. The petitioner asserts that by Exhibit

P1 order, the 2nd respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner.

The petitioner states that when the request for intervention before the

educational authority did not yield any result, he preferred Exhibit P2

representation before the 1st respondent. The solitary prayer in this writ

petition is for the issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider

Exhibit P2 and take a decision.

2. I have heard Sri. Augustine Joseph, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and have

considered the submissions advanced.

3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, no prejudice would

be caused to the 3rd respondent if notice is dispensed with.

4. 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 at

the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions: WP(C) NO. 31683 OF 2022

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

take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, after

affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized

representative and the 3rd respondent.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

expeditiously, in any event, within 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

avs WP(C) NO. 31683 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31683/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.8.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.9.2022 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.