Kerala High Court
The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
WA No.648 of 2025 1 2025:KER:30195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 648 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.13201 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/5TH RESPONDENT :
THE MANAGER
HIGH SCHOOL, PENGAMUCK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680544
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND PETITIONER :
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE - II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506
WA No.648 of 2025 2 2025:KER:30195
5 SHANOJ C. G
AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF C. M. GEORGE, HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION),
HIGH SCHOOL, PENGAMUCK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 544.
( RESIDING AT CHEERAN HOUSE, PENGAMUCK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT), PIN - 680544
BY ADV. SMT RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN,GP
ADV. V A MOHAMMED
SMT.PA JENZIA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.648 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30195
DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &
EASWARAN S., JJ.
--------------------------------
W.A. No.648 of 2025
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025
JUDGMENT
Easwaran S.,J.
This intra court appeal is preferred by the 5th respondent in the
writ petition aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single
Bench in W.P.(C) No.13201 of 2025.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are
as follows:
The 5th respondent/writ petitioner was the Headmaster of High
School, Pengamuck, Thrissur. On 30.5.2024, the writ petitioner was
placed under suspension by the appellant/Manager. Since the provisions
of Chapter XIV-A Rule 67 mandates approval of the educational
authorities for the purpose of extending the period of suspension from
15 days, the Manager moved the Deputy Director of Education (DDE),
Thrissur who, by order dated 13.6.2024 refused to extend the period of
suspension beyond 15 days. Accordingly, the appellant herein was
directed to reinstate the writ petitioner in service forthwith. Since the
WA No.648 of 2025 4 2025:KER:30195
appellant /Manager did not oblige, it is stated that the writ petitioner
assumed charge by himself. This led the appellant/Manager initiating
fresh disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner by issuing a
memo of charge dated 21.10.2024. Since no action was taken by the
departmental authorities, the appellant/Manager approached this Court
in W.P.(C) No.7683 of 2025 and the Deputy Director of Education was
directed to dispose of the representation filed by the appellant within a
period of two weeks. In pursuance of the said direction, the Deputy
Director of Education had notified a date of hearing, and the notice of
hearing was directed to be served on the appellant/Manager through
Head Master/writ petitioner. Alleging that the writ petitioner
deliberately did not serve the notice on the appellant/Manager, in
pursuance to the notice issued by the department, the
appellant/Manager proceeded to place the writ petitioner on suspension
by order dated 27.03.2025 (Ext.P8). As against Ext.P8, the writ
petitioner preferred a representation (Ext.P9) before the Deputy
Director of Education and approached this Court seeking an expeditious
disposal of Ext.P9 representation. The learned Single Judge who
considered the writ petition, issued a direction to the Deputy Director of
Education, to take up Ext.P9 and pass appropriate orders within a period
WA No.648 of 2025 5 2025:KER:30195
of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment
and till such time, the order of suspension was directed to be kept in
abeyance. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid decision that the
appellant/Manager has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard Sri. A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Smt. P.A. Jenzia, the learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner and Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the
learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently
submitted that the writ petitioner had suppressed the material facts and
approached this Court. It is further submitted that the writ petition was
disposed of at the admission stage and, by virtue of the interdiction
granted by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner is now
continuing in service as Headmaster. It is submitted that there is serious
allegations against the writ petitioner having usurped the office even
before the appellant/Manager could issue a consequential order for
implementing the directions contained in the order dated 13.6.2024 of
the Deputy Director of Education. Such unilateral assumption of charge
is not permissible under the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules
and thus it is contended that the learned Single Judge could not have
WA No.648 of 2025 6 2025:KER:30195
permitted the writ petitioner to continue while the representation was
being considered.
5. On the other hand, Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Smt.
Jenzia, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/writ
petitioner would submit that in pursuance to the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge, the Deputy Director of Education had scheduled
the hearing of Ext.P9 representation on 11.4.2025.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar,
we find that the appellant/Manager has not made out any case for
interference in respect of the directions issued by the learned Single
Bench. We noticed that as per order dated 13.6.2024, the Deputy
Director of Education had specifically directed the Manager to reinstate
the teacher in service. On failure of the Manager to issue a consequential
order, the teacher was entitled to assume charge on his own since, going
by the provisions of sub-rule (8) of Rule 67, he is deemed to be in service
on the Educational authority refusing to extend the period of suspension.
The trigger for the present writ petition seems to be that the writ
petitioner failed to communicate the notice scheduling the hearing of the
further proceedings to be taken in respect of the memo of charge issued
WA No.648 of 2025 7 2025:KER:30195
by the appellant/manager against the teacher in respect of unilateral
assumption of the charge pursuant to the order dated 13.6.2024.
However, we notice the fact that the petitioner had produced sufficient
materials in the writ petition to show that despite his best efforts, the
notice on the appellant/Manager could not be served personally but, in
fact, it was served through WhatsApp message. Therefore, it becomes
inevitable for us to conclude that the present action of the Manager was
totally unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Be that as it may, the facts presented before us disclose that
these matters are gaining the attention of the Deputy Director of
Education in Ext.P9 representation. Since the Deputy Director of
Education has scheduled the hearing on 11.4.2025, we deem it
appropriate not to pronounce finally our views in respect of the
proceedings that are gaining attention before the Deputy Director of
Education. Therefore, inasmuch as the parties are being directed to
appear before the Deputy Director of Education on 11.4.2025, we feel
that the further consideration of the writ appeal becomes absolutely
unnecessary. Since the learned Single Judge has only exercised his
discretion in directing the order of suspension to be kept in abeyance till
WA No.648 of 2025 8 2025:KER:30195
a decision is taken on Ext.P9, we find no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Bench.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
The Deputy Director of Education shall proceed to consider Ext.P9 in
accordance with the law, on its merits, untrammelled by the observations
made by the learned Single Judge or by us in this appeal. We make it
clear that the observations made by us in this appeal are only a prima
facie view made only for the purpose of disposal of the writ appeal and
the Deputy Director of Education is free to take its own decision
depending upon the facts presented before him.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
WA No.648 of 2025 9 2025:KER:30195
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.5.2024
SUBMITTED BY ONE SHIJU
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.5.2024
SUBMITTED BY ONE SMT. SMIJA M.J.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9.3.2021
SUBMITTED BY ONE HAMSA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND THE
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NO. 1346/2024 DATED
30.5.2024 ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF SCREEN SHORT OF
THE WHATSAPP POSTING BY THE WRIT PETITIONER
IN WHATSAPP GROUP
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT
OF ALLEGATIONS NO. 1362 DATED 21.10.2024
ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT MANAGER TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT HEREIN
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY C. NO. 106/2024-25
DATED 31.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE APPELLANT MANAGER
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST NO. 1363/2024 DATED
28.11.2024 GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.2.2025 IN
W.P. (C) NO. 7683/2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHORT OF THE E-MAIL
COMMUNICATION DATED 17.3.2025
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER EVIDENCING
RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE BY THE APPELLANT
WA No.648 of 2025 10 2025:KER:30195
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.03.2025
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
28.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER.
