Antu A.D. v. Santhosh T.Emmatty

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/26TH BHADRA, 1937 RP.No. 800 of 2015 (C) ------------------------------- JUDGMENT DATED 10-04-2015 IN WP(C) 12023/2015 .......

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD PARTY:

---------------------------------------------------- ANTU A.D., HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (MALAYALAM), ST.FRANCIS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.

SANTHOSH T. EMMATTY, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (ENGLISH), ST.FRANCIS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 602.

2.

THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

3.

THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 020. 4.

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD & EX-OFFICIO MANAGER, ST. FRANCIS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 602.

R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI R2-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

RP.No. 800 of 2015 (C) ------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE WRIT PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12023/2015. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

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

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

---------------------------------------- R.P.No. 800 of 2015 in WP(C) No.12023 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2015

O R D E R

The review petitioner was not a party to the writ petition. The only prayer of the review petitioner is that he may be also heard along with the writ petitioner as well as the Principal concerned while concluding the proceedings based on Ext.P1 in the writ petition.

2. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the second respondent in the writ petition to hear the review petitioner as well, if proceedings based on Ext.P1 have not been concluded so far.

This review petition is disposed of as above. sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge MBS/