Petitioner challenged a refusal of appointment approval. The Court noted the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 92, Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
Petitioner directed to file a Revision Petition under Rule 92, Chapter XIV A KER before the first respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2006 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 22932 of 2006(E)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
K.O.ANNIE, W/O.K.L.ANTONY, AGED 55 YEARS, HEADMISTRESS, ST.FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS MATTOM (RESIDING AT KUTTIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O.VELUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 601).
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5. THE MANAGER, ST.FRANCIS SCHOOL, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, MATTOM- 680 602, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER (SHRI T.T. MUHAMMED)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 22932 OF 2006 E
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 7.10.2005.
EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.76/05 OF THE MANAGER DATED 6.10.2005.
EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-10950/05 OF THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER DATED 5.12.2005.
EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDN. DATED 21.12.2005.
EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/30864/05/D. DIS. OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDN. DATED 28.3.2006.
EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.4.2006.
EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF TEACHERS.
// TRUE COPY//
PS TO JUDGE
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
W.P.C. NO. 22932 OF 2006 E
Dated this the 14th December, 2006
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5. Against Ext.P5, which is an order passed by the third respondent, Deputy Director of Education, refusing approval on the ground of management dispute, petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing a Revision Petition under Rule 92 Chapter XIV A KER. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the pursuit of the alternate remedy. If the petitioner prefers a Revision Petition under Rule 92 Chapter XIV A KER before the first respondent, a decision will be taken thereon by first respondent in accordance with law, after hearing petitioner and fifth respondent and any other affected party, within a period of ten weeks from the date of filing of the Revision Petition. In view of the above, I am not going into the prayer seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P5.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the refusal of appointment approval is maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Rule 92 Chapter XIV A KER.
K.O.Annie
The State of Kerala
K.M.Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
