T.V.Emily v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/23RD ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31472 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- T.V.EMILY, AGED 56 YEARS WIFE OF K.V. JOSE SANSKRIT TEACHER (RETD.), SREE NARAYANA UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL POTHINKANDAM, KUZHITHOLU POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT (RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE THURUTHIKKARA P.O, PANGARAPPALLY MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST.

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S):

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

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT'

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION IDUKKI AT THODUPUZHA - 685 584 3.

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DIST. 685 553 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 31472 of 2015 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.4463/2011/G.EDN. DTD. 22.10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/1440/2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 24.08.12 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DTD. 7.9.12 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD.30.9.15 WITHOUT ANNEXURE.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

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

SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.31472 of 2015 - H ====================== Dated this the 15th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Ext.P4 revision filed before the 1st respondent. The revision is filed on 30.09.2015.

2. In such circumstance, the 1st respondent definitely will have to look at the revision filed before it and consider the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing, at any rate within a period of four 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/15/10 /2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.