Disposed

Lally v. Varghese v the Manager

Kerala HC10 Jun 2010WP(C)/16311/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenges regarding a denied appointment as a full-time menial. It directed the 5th respondent (Director of Public Instructions) to decide the pending revision petitions jointly within two months, hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Director of Public Instructions to decide the joint revision petitions of the petitioner and the manager expeditiously, within two months, serving notice to both parties.

Lally v Varghese Vs the Manager — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16311 of 2010(L) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

LALLY V VARGHESE, W/O.K.A.JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, KAVUMUKKATHU VHOODANAM P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

¶10

SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, SOCIETY OF THE ORDER OF SACRED TRANSFIGURATION MOUND TABOR, PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE HEAD MASTER, CATHOLICATE HIGH SCHOOL, POTHUKALLU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R3 TO R5

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 16311 of 2010 L

¶22

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2010

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner was appointed as a Full Time Menial in Catholicate High School, Pothukallu as per Ext.P1 order. The said appointment was not approved by the 3^rd respondent. Challenging the order of the 3^rd respondent, the 1^st respondent Manager approached the 4^th respondent. As per Ext.P3, the 4^th respondent refused to give approval to the appointment and virtually confirmed the order of the 3^rd respondent. Against the order in Ext.P3, the 1^st respondent has again filed a revision petition before the 5^th respondent. It is submitted that no order has been passed thereon. Aggrieved by the order in Ext.P3, the petitioner also has filed Ext.P7 revision petition before the 5^th respondent. The petitioner has raised all contentions to support his claim for approval of appointment made as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has also pointed out the fact that in the case of similarly situated persons, the 5^th respondent has approved their appointments. Ext.P5 is one of such orders. In fact, all such contentions are

¶25

WPC.16311/2010

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

raised in Ext.P7. Since Ext.P4 revision petition filed by the 1^st respondent and Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner are pending before the 5^th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 5^th respondent to consider Ext.P7 revision petition along with Ext.P4 revision petition and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner as also the 1^st respondent.

¶28

Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶29

aks

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

P.A. To Judge

Lally v. Varghese v the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lally v. Varghese v the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Praveenkumar Vs the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Elsy P.Oomman Vs State of Kerala

M.Sasikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Justine Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen Vs Cusat and Others

Joy Abraham Vs the D.P.I.