Review petition challenging earlier WPC order. Court clarifies that the Directorate must decide the petitioners' representation based on Annexure (1) judgment, not Ext.P7. Six-week extension granted.
Clarification that orders must be passed on basis of Annexure (1) judgment; six weeks time extension granted.
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 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2007 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1929 RP.No. 495 of 2007(K)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11861/2006 Dated 28/04/2006
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN W.P. :
BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C)
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA, GOVT. PLEADER.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
R.P. No. 495 OF 2007
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007
O R D E R
Heard Mr.Paulson Thomas, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Shyson P. Manguzha, Government Pleader. It is seen that Ext.P7 judgment has been reviewed and substituted by Annexure (1) judgment in review. Under these circumstances my judgment dt.28.04.06 will stand reviewed to the extent of clarifying that the Director of Higher Secondary Education is to pass orders on the representation submitted by the writ petitioners on the basis of Annexure (1) judgment and not Exts.P7 and P7(a). The time frame for taking decision is extended by six weeks from today.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Director of Higher Secondary Education must pass fresh orders based on the substituted Annexure (1) judgment instead of Ext.P7?
What shall be the extended time-frame for the Director to decide the petitioners' representation?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sasikala et al.
State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department
Director of Higher Secondary Education
Pius C. KuriaKose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
