Disposed

Savithri P v. the Director of Public Instruction & Ors.

Kerala HC14 Jun 2010WP(C)/15163/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, widow of school manager, filed writ seeking redress for jurisdictional errors and alleged signature forgery. Court directed first respondent to decide on new application within one month and dismissed other grievances.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider Ext.P10 within one month; petitioner to resort to appropriate proceedings for forgery grievance.

Savithri P Vs the Director of Public Instruction & Ors. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 15163 of 2010(U)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------

¶9

SAVITHRI.P, W/O. LATE V.K.SUKUMARAN KIDAVU, GOVARDHANAM, CHEEKKILODE.P.O. ATHOLI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------

¶13

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

4. T.BABURAJ, HEADMASTER, CHEEKILODE AMLP SCHOOL, CHEEKILODE.P.O. KOZHIKODE.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI DILIP MOHAN, R1 TO R3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 15163 OF 2010

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner is the widow of late V.K. Sukumaran Kidavu, the manager of Cheekilode AMLP School. He is survived by the petitioner and daughter. On his death, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for change of management. She has submitted the same under Rule 5 A of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. It was so submitted under the belief that the change of management would involve change of ownership as well. On its receipt, it was forwarded by the 3^rd respondent to the competent authority i.e., the first respondent. Subsequent to the submission of the said application, the petitioner has realized that the change of management, in the facts of the case, would not involve change of ownership in view of the decision of this Court reported in SOMANATHA PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA (2007(1) KLT 127 . Therefore, according to the petitioner, as it involves only change of management the application has to be considered by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the approval of the 4^th respondent as Manager of

¶24

Wpc No.15163/2010 2

¶25

the School as per Ext.P7 order of the 3^rd respondent. That apart, the petitioner has another grievance i.e., with respect to the alleged action on the part of the 4^th respondent in fabricating the signature of her husband, the late Manager. Ext.P9 is the complaint filed by the petitioner in that behalf before the Deputy Superintendent of Police(Vigilance) with copy to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, no action was taken thereon either by the Deputy Superintendent of Police(Vigilance) or by the second respondent. This writ petition has been filed for redressing the aforesaid grievances.

¶26

After the institution of this Writ petition the petitioner

¶27

has filed Ext.P10 before the 1^st respondent with request to return Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner with liberty to file fresh application before the 3^rd respondent. In fact, even without waiting for the reply on the next day itself viz., on 4.6.2010 the petitioner has submitted a separate application viz., Ext.P11 before the 3^rd respondent requesting for approval of change of management making it clear that change of management does not involve change of ownership. As noticed hereinbefore, in Ext.P4 application the petitioner has stated that the change of management involves change of

¶28

Wpc No.15163/2010 3

¶29

ownership. It is now, pending before the first respondent. It is in the meanwhile that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 before the first respondent and then Ext.P11 before the 3^rd respondent. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, there cannot be any doubt that the first respondent has to take a decision in the matter. The petitioner has filed Ext. P10 before the first respondent with a request to return the application originally submitted viz., Ext.P4 and then filed Ext.P11 before the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

In the circumstances, This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the decision on Ext.P10, the 3^rd respondent shall take appropriate steps in the matter. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner made as per Ext.P9 complaint, the petitioner may resort to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶31

Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶32

jma

¶33

// true copy//

¶34

P.A to Judge

Savithri P v. the Director of Public Instruction & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savithri P v. the Director of Public Instruction & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Justine Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Lally v Varghese Vs the Manager

Shihabudeen Vs Cusat and Others

Dr.N.C.Rajan Vs Shri. E.K.Prakasan

C.G.Sasikumar Vs Secretary to Government

A.Mary Thomas Vs the State of Kerala