C.Sarojini v. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/18TH PHALGUNA, 1936 OP.No. 12742 of 2001 (P) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S):
------------- C. SAROJINI, CHAKKOTH HOUSE, THEKKUMPADAM, P.O. PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S):
----------- 1.
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2.
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR 4.
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR 5.
SRI.C.A. THOMAS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, V.V.S.HIGH SCHOOL MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 6.
DR. T. GOPINATHA MENON, THATTATH, KILLANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 7.
HEADMASTER, V.V.S. HIGH SCHOOL, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT R6 BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.K.PADMANABHAN FOR R5 & 7 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
............................................................ .............................................................. Dated : 9th March, 2015
JUDGMENT
th Petitioner challenges Exts. P3 and P5 by which the 6 respondent was appointed as the Manager of Vidyabhi Vardhini Samithi (V.V.S. High School), Mannuthy.
2. Petitioner claims to be a member of the management of Vidyabhi Vardhini Samithi, Mannuthy. The School was taken over by the Government in the year 1991-1992 and later, it was th restored back to the Samithi. Petitioner contended that the 6 respondent has claimed himself as the President of the Samithi and he applied to the Educational Authorities for approving him as Manager. Finally, as per Ext. P5 order dated 11-7-2000, the District Educational Officer has approved the appointment of th respondent as Manager with effect from 1-6-1998 to 31the 6 5-1999. It is inter alia contended that the approval of
th respondent as Manager was rejected appointment of the 6 earlier, and reversal of the said stand, was without any further material, is invalid.
3. The petitioner also challenges Ext. P3 order by which the th respondent as High School Assistant appointment of the 5 nd (Social Studies) was approved. It is contended that the 2 respondent has no jurisdiction to pass any such orders. When this matter came up for hearing , there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner . It is pertinent to note that the events which are under challenge had happened in the year 2000 and there is no necessity to consider the merits of the contention at this point of time.
Apparently, this Original Petition has become infructuous due to lapse of time and, accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE (Judge) ani/
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
...........................................
...........................................
Dated : 9th March, 2015
JUDGMENT