Kerala High Court
Leena vs State Of Kerala on 26 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945
WA NO. 1347 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.07.2023 IN WP(C) 18503/2023 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 & 5:
1 LEENA, AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. PADMANABHA KURUP RESIDING AT KALLOTT THAZHA KUNIYIL,
KURNJALIYODE P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673542
2 THANKAM, AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. PADMANABHA KURUP RESIDING AT PANAYAKULANGARA,
KATAMERI POST KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673542
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & WRIT PETITIONERS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODANNUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673541
4 BEENA, AGED 54 YEARS
D/O. PADMANABHA KURUP RESIDING AT SHREYAS, VATAYAM POST
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673507
5 BIJU
:2:
W.A.No.1347 of 2023
S/O. PADMANABHA KURUP RESIDING AT PANAYAKULANGARA,
KATAMERI POST KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673542
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AJ VARGHESE, SR
SRI.R K MURALEEDHARAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
W.A.No.1347 of 2023
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the judgment dated
06.07.2023 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.18503 of 2023. The
learned Single Judge, while considering the challenge at the instance of
the 4th and 5th respondents herein to Ext.P5 order passed in favour of
the appellants herein by the educational authority, found force in the
contention of the writ petitioners that the impugned order had been
passed without hearing them. The learned Single Judge, therefore,
disposed the Writ Petition by permitting the writ petitioners to file an
appeal before the 1st respondent against Ext.P5 order that was
impugned in the Writ Petition and further directed the 1 st respondent to
consider and pass orders in the appeal after hearing the writ
petitioners and the appellants herein within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The interim order that was
passed in the Writ Petition, that prevented the appellants herein from
making any regular appointment in the school, was directed to be
continued till such time as the 1 st respondent passed an order in the
appeal preferred by the writ petitioners.
W.A.No.1347 of 2023
2. In the appeal before us, the appellants who were the
respondents in the Writ Petition impugn the judgment of the learned
Single Judge primarily on the contention that the learned Single Judge
erred in granting an opportunity to the writ petitioners to prefer an
appeal against Ext.P5 order that was impugned in the Writ Petition. It is
the contention of Smt. Ann Maria Francis, the learned counsel for the
appellants, that inasmuch as the provisions of the Kerala Education
Rules clearly mandate that any appeal against an order in the nature of
Ext.P5 should be preferred within 30 days from the date of
communication of the said order to the person aggrieved, and in the
instant case, the said appeal was belated, the learned Single Judge
ought not to have permitted the writ petitioners to pursue the appeal
before the 1st respondent. It is also her contention that, at any rate,
since the aspects projected by the writ petitioners are not matters on
which the educational authorities can take a decision, the appeal itself
was wholly misconceived.
3. We have heard Smt.Ann Maria Francis, the learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri.R.K.Muraleeddharan, the learned counsel for the 4th
and 5th respondents herein and the learned Government Pleader for
the official respondents of the State.
W.A.No.1347 of 2023
4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view
that in as much as what was directed by the learned Single Judge was
only the consideration of an appeal preferred by persons who were not
served with any notice prior to the passing of Ext. P5 and Ext.P6 order
that affected their rights vis-a-vis the management/ownership of the
school in question, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted. It is trite that the limitation period for filing of an
appeal must commence from the date of communication of the order
appealed against to the persons aggrieved by the said order. In the
instant case, the case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single
Judge itself was that P6 order was never communicated to them, and as
a matter of fact, they were not issued any prior notice before the
adjudication that resulted in Exts.P5 and P6 orders. Under the said
circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not
err in law in directing the appeal against Ext.P6 order to be considered
by the appellate authority after hearing either side to the dispute. We
are also informed by the learned Government Pleader that the appeal
that has been preferred by the writ petitioners pursuant to the
directions of the learned Single Judge has since been allotted a File
No.F2/116/2023/General Edn. (F). We, therefore, dispose this Writ
W.A.No.1347 of 2023
Appeal by refusing to interfere with the directions of the learned Single
Judge save to the extent of clarifying that the 1 st respondent shall
ensure that the direction with regard to the hearing and adjudication of
the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners is complied with in letter in
spirit and orders passed therein within the time limit granted by the
learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal is disposed as above.
Sd/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
mns
