Jai.M.Thomas v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/5TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17951 of 2015 (T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- JAI.M.THOMAS AGED 38 YEARS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT MALAYALAM M.E.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MANNARKKAD MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O.
PALAKKAD-678 583.RESIDING AT MATTAPPALLIL MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 583.
BY ADVS.SMT.M.R.SREELATHA SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 582.
3. CORPORATE MANAGER M.E.S. SCHOOLS, M.E.S. OFFICE, BANK ROAD CALICUT-673 001.
4. HEADMISTRESS M.E.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 583. R BY SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. LOUSY .A R BY SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 17951 of 2015 (T) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1.
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1467/04(6) DATED 7/10/2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2.
TRUE COPY OF THE VISA ISSUED TO THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF THE PETITONER EXT.P3.
TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/4/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL EXT.P4.
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HEADMISTRESS EXT.P5.
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGER EXT.P6.
TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF LEAVE APPLICATION BY THE HEADMISTRESS DATED 20/4/2015. EXT.P7.
TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HEADMISTRESS DATED 13/5/2015 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT.P7(A).
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE HEADMISTRESS TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4/6/215.
EXT.P8.
TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22/11/2014 ISSUED BY MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT.
EXT.P9.
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/7/2014 IN WPC NO.17009/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P10.
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED8/10/2014 IN WA NO.1375/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P11.
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/12/2014 IN WPC NO.29350/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P12.
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE D.E.O DATED 5/6/2015.
EXT.P12(A).
TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 5/6/2015. EXT.P13.
TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.25218/J2/99/G.EDN. DATED 21/5/1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT EXT.P14.
TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL DATED 26/3/2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- nil // True copy // das PA to Judge
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
=========================================== W.P.(C). No. 17951 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is an aided school teacher, had submitted a leave application for joining his wife, who is working in United Arab Emirates. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, while the petitioner had submitted his leave application, through proper channel, to the 4th respondent Head Mistress and the 3rd respondent Manager, the 3rd respondent Manager has not taken any steps to forward the leave application to the 2nd respondent, for onward transmission to the 1st respondent, who is the leave sanctioning authority. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the authorities to process the leave application expeditiously.
2.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent 1 and 2.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd and 4th
-2W.P.(C). No. 17951 of 2015 respondents that the application preferred by the petitioner has since been forwarded to the Office of the 2nd respondent, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to ensure that the application of the petitioner for leave, which has been forwarded to them by the 3rd respondent, is processed, and a decision taken thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das