Dismissed

The Manager v. Director of Public Instruction

Kerala HC15 Dec 2006WP(C)/28012/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging salary-related orders. Finding that an alternate remedy of revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER existed, the court directed the petitioners to file a revision and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition accordingly, while ensuring interim relief continues pending the revision.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were allowed one month to file revision; interim order continues; writ petition disposed of by direction to pursue alternate remedy.

The Manager Vs Director of Public Instruction — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2006 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 28012 of 2006(I)

PETITIONER:

THE MANAGER, A I S U P S., MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

SINI K.J., L.P.S.A., A I S U P S., MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶12

SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.ARUL KUMAR.P

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMMED.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC. 28012/2006.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF CONSTITUTION OF SCHOOL BY ORDER NO.K.DIS. G-4 10988/74.

¶23

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPYOF STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2005-06.

¶24

EXT. P2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF LIST.

¶25

EXT P2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF LIST.

¶26

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.46/06/GE

¶27

EXT. P4 : TRUE COPYOF THE G.O.(P) NO. 73/06/GE.

¶28

EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PROTECTED HAND AS LPSA.

¶29

EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER.

¶31

EXT. P7(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT NO.3-307/05/N DIS.BY 2ND RESPONDENT OBJECTING SALARY BILL OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶32

EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS.F(5)/19064/06/DPI OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D/981/06 OF 2ND RESPONDENT DEMANDING REFUND OF SALARY PAID.

¶34

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

¶35

- - - - WP.(C) No. 28012 OF 2006

¶36

- - - - Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2006

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, on the basis of which Ext.P9 is issued. It is not in dispute that against Ext.P8 order, petitioner has an alternate remedy by filing revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA KER. In such circumstances, the petitioner should be relegated to the pursuit of the alternate remedy.

¶39

Heard Government Pleader also.

¶40

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners will file

¶41

a revision against Exts.P8 and P9 within a period of one month from

¶42

today. If a revision is filed against Exts.P8 and P9, the revisional authority under Rule 92 will take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the revision after hearing the affected parties. Till such time as a decision is taken, the interim order passed by this court will continue. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, status quo as on today will continue till the petitioners file revision and thereafter it is open to the second

¶43

¶44

WPC . 28012/2006.

¶45

petitioner to seek interim relief before the concerned authority. This

¶46

will be subject to the result of the revision.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

K.M.JOSEPH, JJ.

W.A. No. OF

JUDGMENT

Dated this the day of February, 2006.

The Manager v. Director of Public Instruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Director of Public Instruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.M.K.Manoj Vs Prof. (Dr.) Meenu Hariharan

Satheesh Kumar K.A. Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskri

K.O.Annie Vs State of Kerala

N.Priya Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Maya S Vs Dy Director of Educaation,Kottayam

Poulose Vs State of Kerala