Divya K v. O.M.Sebannisabeevi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/19TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 795 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------------------------- ORDER DATED 7/4/2015 IN WP(C) 12330/2014 .........

PETITIONER(S)/6TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DIVYA K., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI, KUNNEL HOUSE, P.O.CHENDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 692, (HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JR) (MALAYALAM). BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.3 IN THE WRIT PETITION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. O.M.SEBAN NISABEEVI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, (RETD.) KOZHIKODE 673 001.

2. P.K.ABDUL SAMAD, IN-CHARGE, REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCTION, KANNUR - 670 001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

Con.Case(C).No. 795 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.5.2014 & 7.4.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.12330/2014.

ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/2955/2014/K.DIS. DTD.28.5.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

******************************************************* Contempt Case No.795 of 2015 ******************************************************* Dated this the 9th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

This Court by Annexure-A1 order, at the instance of party respondents, ordered that if the party respondents are otherwise qualified, there is no impediment in approving the appointment and any payment of salary will be subject to result of this writ petition. It appears that the approval was given and the salary was not paid for the reason that the pendency of this writ petition. If the salary is not released to the party respondents, they have remedy by moving appropriate application in appropriate manner before the Court either in pending or by filing writ petition. This Court did not pass any positive order in Annexure-A1. Accordingly, with that liberty, to invoke appropriate remedy, this Contempt Case is closed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln