N.Surendran v. N.Suseelan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2015/11TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 510 of 2015 (M) IN WP(C).16127/2015 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16127/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-06-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/5TH RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- N.SURENDRAN CHOONDEVILAKATHU, KURUVARA, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. N.SUSEELAN MANAGER , M.G.M. HIGH SCHOOL, POOZHANAD NEYYATINAKARA EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695121
2. THESTATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMWENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3. THE DIRECTOR OFPUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695035
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695121 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY.A.
R BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2015 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------- R.P.NO.510 OF 2015 W.P.(C).NO.16127 OF 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2015
O R D E R
The review petitioner is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C). No.16127/2015, which was disposed by a judgment dated 1.6.2015, whereby, this Court directed the 1st respondent State Government to consider and pass orders on a revision petition that was filed by the 1st respondent in the review petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the review petitioner and the 1st respondent. The revision that was preferred by the 1st respondent was against an order dated 30.3.2015 of the Additional Director of Public Instructions, which was an interim order passed in an appeal pending before the said authority. The review petitioner, who filed W.P.(C).No.16211/2015 aggrieved by the same order, against which the 1st respondent in the review petition had preferred the revision petition before the State Government, contends that the interim order of the Additional Director of Public Instructions, which had the effect of staying an order that was passed in his favour
R.P.NO.510/2015 W.P.(C).NO.16127/2015 recognising him as the Manager of the School, was passed without hearing him. In W.P.(C).No.16211/2015, the order dated 30.3.2015 of the Additional Director of Public Instructions is impugned on the said ground. Taking note of the fact that this Court had already disposed W.P.(C).No.16127/2015 by directing the State Government to pass orders on the revision petition preferred by the petitioner in that writ petition against the order dated 30.3.2015 of the Additional Director of Public Instructions, when the review petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the judgment dated 1.6.2015 in W.P.(C).No.16127/2015.
When the matter came up today, it is pointed out by counsel for the review petitioner, which fact is confirmed by the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents, that the appeals preferred by both the review petitioner, as also the 1st respondent in the review petition, challenging the order passed by the District Educational Officer have already been heard by the Director of Public Instructions and all that remains is for the Director of Public Instructions to pass orders on both the appeals.
R.P.NO.510/2015 W.P.(C).NO.16127/2015 that the interests of justice would be served by directing the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram, to pass final orders in the appeals preferred by the review petitioner, as also the 1st respondent in the review petition, after hearing them, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the Director of Public Instructions to do so, I recall the judgment in W.P.(C).No.16127/2015 by allowing the review petition.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp