← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/610/2015disposed of

Sukumar K.K v. State Of Kerala

2015-01-084 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 610 of 2015 (A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER:

------------------ SUKUMAR K.K, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, A.K.HOUSE, PERODE.P.O NADAPURAM, VIA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673504.

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS:

-----------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001.

3. THE MANAGER, C.A.HIGH SCHOOL, AYAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683. R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

WP(C).No. 610 of 2015 (A) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)16346/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT.11.07.2013 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 610 OF 2015-A ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

Approval of appointment of the petitioner who had worked under the 3rd respondent from 01-06-2007 to 31-072010 was declined by the Educational officer. The D.E.O also confirmed the order. The petitioner challenged the same before this court as W.P (c) No.16346/2013. In Ext.P1 judgment this court observed that the petitioner has got an effective remedy to approach the Government in revision, as contemplated under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA K.E.R. Therefore this court has granted liberty to file revision petition against the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that eventhough such a revision petition was filed as early as in July, 2013, as evidenced from Ext.P2, the Government have not considered and disposed of the same, despite the lapse of considerable time.

2.

Heard; Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. Considering pendency of Ext.P2 before the

W.P.(c) No. 610/2015 -2Government, this court is of the opinion that direction for an early consideration of the same would suffice to meet the ends of justice.

3.

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and others concerned, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG True copy P.A. to Judge