Tinu Titus .M vs Director Of General Education
2022 Latest Caselaw 10450 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. 31631 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

           TINU TITUS .M
           AGED 35 YEARS
           W/O. SAJI,
           PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
           CHRIST KING CONVENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
           PAVARATTY-P.O, THRISSUR DIST-680 507

           BY ADVS.
           GEORGE ABRAHAM
           JOSEPH GOPURAN
           JOBY D JOSEPH
           MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.

RESPONDENT/S:

    1      DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
           JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

    2      DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
           CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR - 680003

    3      DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           CHAVAKKAD - 680506

    4      THE CORPORATE MANAGER
           CARMELITE CONGREGATION OF SISTERS,
           KOLAZHI-P.O, THRISSUR-680010

           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. 31631 OF 2022

                                      2


                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibit P6 order issued

by the 3rd respondent and for a further direction to the respondents 1 to

3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Physical Education

teacher from 01.06.2022 onwards.

2. Sri. George Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that challenging Ext.P6 order of rejection issued by

the DEO, Chavakkad, the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P7 revision

petition before the 1st respondent. The learned counsel requests that

directions be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and take

a decision.

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

would be caused to the 4th 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. 31631 OF 2022

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

authorized representative and the 4th respondent.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

expeditiously, in any event, within four 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. 31631 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31631/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER SHOWING APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CARMELITE CONGREGATION OF SISTERS, KOLAZHI, THRISSUR DATED 1/6/2015.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY DATED 7TH MAY 2010.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY, KARAIKUDY DATED 14/2/2011.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO. 145/16/G.EDN. DATED 30/8/2016.

Exhibit P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

R.A(2)/23838/19/D.GE/L.DIS/G.EDN DATED 11/10/2019 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.B4/35629/2022 DATED 23/9/2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.

Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27/9/2022.