Dismissed

Manager, Puttekkad a.M.L.P.School v. P.Sasidharan

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012RP/953/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by the manager of a school seeking reconsideration of a judgment in a writ petition concerning the suspension of a head master. The Court rejected the petitioner's explanation of being out for medical treatment and declined interference.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed and the earlier judgment in W.P.(C) No.29993/2011 was upheld.

Manager, Puttekkad a.M.L.P.School Vs P.Sasidharan — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 953 of 2012 (Y) IN WP(C).29993/2011

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29993/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-09-2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/4TH RESPONDENT :

¶8

MANAGER, PUTTEKKAD A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, P.O. FEROKE, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)

¶10

SRI.JIJI THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN W.P.C :

¶12

1. P.SASIDHARAN

¶13

HEAD MASTER, PUTTEKKAD A.M.L.P. SCHOOL, P.O. FEROKE, KOZHIKODE PIN-673001. (RESIDING AT SITHARA NEAR MANAPPURAM TEMPLE POST CHOKLI, VIA THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT)

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶16

4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 007.

¶17

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

AMV

¶20

RP.No. 953 of 2012 (Y) IN WP(C).29993/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.29993 OF 2011 Y OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶24

ANNEXURE B : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10.10.2011 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

ANNEXURE C : COPY OF COMPLAINT5 DATED 26.08.2011 FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶26

ANNEXURE D : COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 14.10.2011 ISSUED FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶27

ANNEXURE E : COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.10.2011 ISSUED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

ANNEXURE F : COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 15.09.2011 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶29

ANNEXURE G : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 15.12.2011 FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶30

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶35

R.P.No.953 of 2012

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) NO.29993 of 2011 (Y)

¶38

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2012

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This review petition has been filed by the petitioner, virtually seeking to 'reconsider' the matter, by setting aside the judgment dated 10.09.2012 in W.P.(C) No.29993/2011.

¶41

The issue pending before this Court in the writ petition was finalised, giving appropriate directions, also taking note of the fact, in spite of the completion of service of notice, the 4^th respondent in the writ petition (who happens to be the review petitioner) had not chosen to appear and contest the matter. The case projected by the review petitioner is that, she was out of station for medical treatment and hence she could not engage any advocate for contesting the matter. The said submission is sought to be rebutted by the opposite side, pointing out that, the very same petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33354/11 during such time and hence

¶42

that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the said

¶43

R.P.No.953 of 2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.29993 of 2011 (Y)

¶44

¶45

submission.

¶46

After hearing, this Court finds that, there is no dispute for the review petitioner that notice was served, but the party

¶47

did not turn up. The explanation offered from the part of the review petitioner does not appear to be palatable to this Court. There is no error apparent on the face of the records to invoke the power of Review. This is, more so, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Smt.Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [ AIR 1995 SC 455]. Interference is declined and the review petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶48

sd/-

¶49

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶50

AMV

Manager, Puttekkad a.M.L.P.School v. P.Sasidharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager, Puttekkad a.M.L.P.School v. P.Sasidharan

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

S.Suchesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Maya Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith.B Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

U.v.Kumaran Vs K.Chandran

K.Subhadra Vs R.K.Singh

M.Mohanan Vs the Executive Officer, Thrikkannad Tryambakeshwara Temple