State Of Kerala v. Asha Devadas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/5TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WA.No. 1159 of 2013 (W) -------------------------- JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30183/2012 DATED 18-12-2012 APPELLANTS:
-----------
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
BY ADV.SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------
1. ASHA DEVADAS W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, WORKING AS TRAINER SSA (SARVA SIKSHA ABHAYAN) MUVATTUPUZHA ON WORKING ARRANGEMENT HIG SCHOOL ASSISTANT MATHS, MRSV HIGH SCHOOL S.MAZHUVANNOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669.
2. MINI.N.ELAYATHU W/O.K.S.VIPIN, WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MALAYALAM, MRSV HIGH SCHOOL, S.MAZHUVANNOOR MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669.
3. THE MANAGER MRSV HIGH SCHOOL, S.MAZHUVANNOOR MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. HARILAL, JJ.
--------------------------------- W.A. No.1159 of 2013 & C.M.Appl.No.621 of 2013 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. Having perused the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay of 176 days, we do not see that any acceptable cause has been shown to be treated as sufficient enough to condone the delay. The attribute is made to the heavy load of work which is an inexcusable component of any Government lawyer's office. We say so more particularly because the judgment was delivered by the learned single Judge on 18.12.2012 and the appeal is presented only on 20.7.2013, though the certified copy of the impugned judgment was obtained on 9.1.2013. That apart, we have also looked into the merits of the case. The learned single Judge has only followed an earlier judgment. We are not impressed to take the view
W.A. No.1159 of 2013 & C.M.Appl.No.621/2013 that the said decision needs a different look on the facts of the case in hand. Though the learned Senior Government Pleader makes reference to the decision in Alizuamma v. Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General [2013(4) KLT 53], it does not govern the situation. The writ appeal also fails.
In the result, the writ appeal and the C.M.Application are dismissed.
Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE Scl.