Disposed

V.T.Gigimon v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2013WP(C)/20319/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging suspension and seeking reinstatement was disposed of by directing the respondent to expediently consider the petitioner's filed review petition under the Kerala Education Rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to consider petitioner's review petition (Ext.P9) under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules and pass appropriate orders within one month.

V.T.Gigimon Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/13TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20319 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

V.T.GIGIMON, AGED 43 YEARS SON OF THOMAS KURIAN LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION) ST. ANTONY'S HIGH SCHOOL P.O. VELLIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686580. (RESIDING AT VALAYATHIL , VELLIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686580).

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATYION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686507.

¶14

5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF PALA, PALA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 20319 of 2013 (L)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT. P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 29-9-2008.

¶23

EXT. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE STAFF MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL DATED 14-10-2008.

¶24

EXT. P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE P.T.A. MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL DATED 24-10.2008.

¶25

EXT. P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28-8-2008.

¶26

EXT. P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 9-2-2009. EXT. P6. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19-2-2009. EXT. P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26-2-2009. EXT. P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 18308/2009 G DATED 15-7-2009.

¶27

EXT. P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 21-1-13.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBIT & ANNEXURE :

¶29

EXT. R4(a) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.9.2008.

¶30

ANNEXURE R4(a) COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 13.9.13.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.

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

¶36

W.P.(C)NO.20319 OF 2013 =====================

¶37

Dated this the 4th day of November 2013.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner who is a Lower Primary School Assistant in St. Antony's High School, Vellikulam in Kottayam District was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 on the allegation of sexual harassment. Ext.P1 would reveal that he was so placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings with effect from 29.09.2008. This writ petition has been filed mainly seeking quashment of Ext.P1 and issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 5th respondent manager to reinstate the petitioner in service. The further prayer is for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9. Ext.P9 is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of suspension and to review the order in Ext.P1 in terms of the provisions under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules. Since the petitioner himself filed Ext.P9 carrying a prayer for review of the order of suspension it is only appropriate for the first respondent to consider Ext.P9 and take a decision on the question of reinstatement. Pending such decision I do not see any reason to order reinstatement of the petitioner as sought for. The said question whether the petitioner could be

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C)NO.20319 OF 2013

¶42

reinstated or whether Ext.P1 requires a review are matters to be considered by the 1st respondent, taking note of the provisions under Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules and also the facts obtained in the case. In fact, it is precisely seeking such a relief that the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 petition before the 1st respondent. In the said circumstances, without making any observations as to the merits of the contentions this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

R.AV

V.T.Gigimon v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.T.Gigimon v. the 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

M. Ibrayi Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Sooraj Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar.P.R Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

V.K.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs the Director

The Manager, Sreekrishnapuram Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala