R.Santhakumari Amma v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/7TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 29468 of 2015 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- R.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 57 YEARS WIFE OF RAJEEV, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASST. (RETD.) M.V. LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MANTHARA, P.O VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 2.

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014.

3.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM 695 014.

4.

THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 141 5.

THE MANAGER, M.V.LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL MANTHARA, P.O VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 695 141 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 29468 of 2015 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/2548/2011/AEO DATED 28.12.11 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY NOTICE DATED 14.09.12 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/2548/11/AEO DATED 02.06.14 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVT. DATED 5.7.04 EXT.P4(A) COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.07.15 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.14.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.29468 of 2015 - G ====================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Exts.P4 and P4(a) revisions filed before the 1st respondent. The revisions are filed on 05.07.2014 and 17.07.2015 respectively.

2. In such circumstance, the 1st respondent definitely will have to look at the revisions filed before it and consider the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of hearing. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits, which the 1st respondent will consider, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.