Disposed

P.P. Valsalan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2008WP(C)/7027/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's inability to manage an aided school due to government employment. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for a nominee manager within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for nominee approval expediently within two months.

P.P. Valsalan Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 7027 of 2008(J)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER: ------------

¶8

P.P.VALSALAN, S/O.P.P.KRISHNAN, PALERIPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHENDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

BY G.P. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶18

==================

¶19

W.P.(C).No.7027 of 2008

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner is the present educational agency of an aided school, by succession. However, the petitioner is employed under the Government of Pondichery and, therefore, he is unable to be the manager of the school. Since his wife is a teacher in the same school, she is also not eligible to act as the manager. Originally, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the Government to consider his application for exemption under Rule 8(2) of Chapter III of the KER. However, now he seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application submitted by him for approval of his nominee, viz., Sri.Sreejesh.K., S/o.Sreedharan, aged 30 years, Sreenilayam, P.O.Panoor, as the manager of the school till 30.11.2015 which is the date of his retirement. The petitioner now confines his prayer for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously.

¶23

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶24

w.p.c.7027/08 2

¶25

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

sdk+

¶28

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶29

///True copy///

¶30

P.A. to Judge

P.P. Valsalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P. Valsalan v. State of Kerala

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

P.K.Vasudevan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Vinod B.S. Vs State of Kerala

Donnie J.M.Philip Vs P.Venugopal

Dr.B.Balakrishnan Vs Dr.Joby.v.Paul

K.Krishnan Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin)Mills Vs State of Kerala