P. Haris v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 37859 of 2015 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- P. HARIS AGED, 29 YEARS SON OF ABDU SALAM ARABIC TEACHER, RAHMANIYA ORPHANAGE ALP SCHOOL PERUVALATHPARAMBA, IRUKKUR, KANNUR DIST. 670 593 BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD SMT.P.A.JENZIA SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S):

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

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

GENERAL EDUCATIOND DEPT., SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

2.

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141 3.

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 670 141 4.

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER IRIKKUR, KANNUR DIST. 670 593 5.

THE MANAGER, RAHMANIYA ORPHANAGE ALP SCHOOL PERUVALATHPARAMBA, IRUKKUR KANNUR DIST. 670 593 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A. LOWSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 37859 of 2015 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DTD 2.6.14 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F/3830/14/K.DIS DTD. 13.2.15 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 10/3/15 BY THE MANAGER EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4/1583/2015/K.DIS DTD. 19.5.15 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DTD. 17.6.15 BY THE MANAGER.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

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

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.37859 of 2015 - F ====================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Ext.P5 revision filed before the 2nd respondent. The revision is filed on 17.06.2015.

2. In such circumstance, the 2nd 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 three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits, which the 2nd respondent will consider, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/15/12/2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.